Skip to main content

Subjectivity in decision making: Common problems and limitations

World Journal of Surgery volume 13, pages 281–286 (1989)Cite this article

Abstract

Subjectivity is an inescapable part of the diagnostic and decision making process. Limitations on memory are compensated for by invoking “diagnoses” as devices for managing information during diagnosis. Thus, large amounts of information can be stored as confirmations and departures from the diagnostic hypotheses. Well-documented limitations in probabilistic reasoning interfere with diagnosis and patient management. Uncommon diagnoses may be invoked inappropriately. Misconceptions of chance may lead to erroneous conclusions about health care. Most perplexing is that physicians attempting to incorporate patient preference in decision making are confronted with problems of subjective inconsistencies in patient valuation of outcomes of health care. The major problems of quantification and analysis are amenable to management through education, computing, and better patient data management. Problems of utility elicitation will require further research.

Résumé

La subjectivité fait partie intégrante de l'attitude diagnostique et décisionnelle. Les limites de la mémoire sont compensées par les “suggestions diagnostiques” au cours du processus de recueil des informations à visée diagnostique. Ainsi de nombreuses informations peuvent être stockées pour confirmer ou écarter les hypothèses diagnostiques. Le raisonnement probabliste présente les limites bien connues qui interfèrent avec le diagnostic et le traitement. Des diagnostics rares risquent d'être suggérés à tort. Des conceptions fausses concernant le “hasard” risquent de conduire à des erreurs dans les conclusions dans le domaine de la santé. Un autre fait s'avère plus troublant encore: les mèdecins qui essaient de tenir compte des préférences de leurs patients sont confrontés au problème de l'évaluation subjective des résultats des soins de la part des patients. Les problèmes importants de quantification et d'analyse peuvent être traités grâce à l'éducation, à l'informatique et à une étude meilleure des renseignements des patients. Aucune conclusion ne peut être tirée pour l'instant: il faut poursuivre les recherches.

Resumen

La subjetividad constituye un componente ineludible del proceso de diagnóstico y de toma de decisiones. Las limitaciones de la memoria son compensadas mediante la invocación de “diagnósticos,” o hipótesis diagnósticas, para el manejo de la información en el curso de un diagnóstico. Es así como grandes masas de información pueden ser almacenadas como confirmaciones o como desviaciones de las hipótesis diagnósticas. Bien documentadas limitaciones en el razonamiento probabilístico pueden interferir con el diagnóstico y el manejo del paciente; diagnósticos poco frecuentes pueden ser invocados en forma inapropiada; concepciones equivocadas del azar pueden dar lugar a conclusiones erróneas sobre la atención general de la salud. Causa perplejidad el que los médicos que intentan incorporar las preferencias del paciente en el proceso de la toma de decisiones se ven confrontados con problemas de inconsistencias subjetivas por parte del mismo paciente al emprender la valoración de los resultados de la atención de la salud. Los problemas mayores de cuantificación y análisis son susceptibles de manejo mediante educación, computación, y un superior manejo de la información clínica. Los problemas de deducción de la utilidad requieren investigación adicional.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1944

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pauker, S.G.: Prescriptive approaches to medical decision making. Am. Behav. Scientist25:507, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science185:1124, 1974

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bar-Hillel, M.: The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychol.44:211, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arkes, H.R., Wortmann, R.L., Saville, P.D., Harkness, A.R.: The hindsight bias among physicians weighting the likelihood of diagnoses. J. Appl. Psychol.66:252, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  6. Berwick, D.M., Fineberg, H.V., Weinstein, M.C.: When doctors meet numbers. Am. J. Med.71:991, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  7. Christensen-Szalanski, J.J.J., Beach, L.R.: Experience and the base-rate fallacy. Organizational Behav. Hum. Performance29:270, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fischoff, B.: Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. J. Exp. Psych. Hum. Perception and Performance1:288, 1975

    Google Scholar 

  9. Slovic, P.: Value as the determiner of subjective probability. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics7:22, 1966

    Google Scholar 

  10. Elstein, A.S., Shulman, L.S., Sprafka, S.A.: Medical Problem Solving, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  11. Miller, G.A.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev.63: 81

  12. Simon, H.A.: Models of Man: Social and Rational, New York, Wiley, 1957

    Google Scholar 

  13. Newell, A., Simon, H.A.: Human Problem Solving, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1972

    Google Scholar 

  14. Simon, H.A.: How big is a chunk? Science183:482, 1974

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fryback, D.G.: Subjective probabilities in medical decision making: Comments on linking cognitive processes to patient outcomes. Proc. IEEE, Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Soc., 7th Int. Conference, Washington, D.C., Sept. 19–21, 1977

  16. Detmer, D.E., Fryback, D.G., Gassner, K.: Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making. J. Med. Educ.53:682, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P.: Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of psychodiagnostic signs. J. Abnorm. Psychol.73:193, 1967

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chapman, L.J., Chapman, J.P.: Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations. J. Abnorm. Psychol.74:271, 1969

    Google Scholar 

  19. Svenson, O.: Are we less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychol.47:143, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  20. Keillor, G.: A Prairie Home Companion (Weekly Radio Program), National Public Broadcasting System, 1983

  21. Janis, I.L., Mann, L.: Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment, New York, Free Press, 1977

    Google Scholar 

  22. Feinstein, A.R.: The “chagrin factor” and qualitative decision analysis. Arch. Intern. Med.145:1257, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  23. Holzman, G.B., Ravitch, M.M., Metheny, W., Rothert, M.L., Holmes, M., Hoppe, R.B.: Physicians' judgments about estrogen replacement therapy for menopausal women. Obstet. Gynecol.63: 303, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  24. Elstein, A.S., Holzman, G.B., Ravitch, M.M., Metheny, W.A., Holmes, M.M., Hoppe, R.B., Rothert, M.L., Rovner, D.R.: Comparison of physicians' decisions regarding estrogen replacement therapy for menopausal women and decisions derived from a decision analytic model. Am. J. Med.80:246, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  25. Holmes, M.M., Rovner, D.R., Rothert, M.L., Elstein, A.S., Holzman, G.B., Hoppe, R.B., Metheny, W.A., Ravitch, M.: Women's and physicians' utilities for health outcomes in estrogen replacement therapy. J. Gen. Internal. Med.2:178, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  26. Torrence, G.W.: Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioeconomic Planning Sci.10:129, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  27. Read, J.L., Quinn, R.J., Berwick, D.M., Fineberg, H.V., Weinstein, M.C.: Preferences for health outcomes: Comparison of assessment methods. Med. Decis. Making4:315, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  28. Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Sutherland, H.J., Tibshirani, R., Ciampi, A., Till, J., Boyd, N.F.: The measurement of patients' values in medicine. Med. Decis. Making2:449, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  29. McNeil, B.J., Weichselbaum, R., Pauker, S.G.: Speech and survival: Tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.305:982, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  30. Llewellyn-Thomas, H.A., Sutherland, H.J., Tritchler, D.L., Ciampi, A., Lockwood, G.A., Till, J.E.: Benign and malignant breast disease: The relationship between women's health status and health values. (Abstract). Med. Decision Making7:291, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  31. McNeil, B.J., Pauker, S.G., Sox, H.C., Tversky, A.: On the elicitation of preferences for alternate therapies. N. Engl. J. Med.306:1259, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  32. Christensen-Szalanski, J.J.J.: How reliable are patients' values: A study of women in labor. Med. Decision Making4:47, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  33. Llewellyn-Thomas, H.A., Sutherland, H.J., Ciampi, A., EtezadiAmoli, J., Boyd, N., Till, J.: The assessment of values in laryngeal cancer: Reliability of assessment methods. J. Chron. Dis.37:283, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  34. Eiseman, B.: Surgical Decision Making, Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  35. Eiseman, B.: Prognosis of Surgical Disease, Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  36. Norton, L.W., Eiseman, B.: Surgical Decision Making, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  37. Eiseman, B.: What Are My Chances? Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  38. Clarke, J.R.: A comparison of decision analysis and second opinion programs for surgical decisions. Arch. Surg.120:844, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  39. Halsted, W.S.: The training of the surgeon. Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bull.15:267, 1904

    Google Scholar 

  40. Von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W.: Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hershey, J.C., Kunreuther, H.C., Schoemaker, P.J.H.: Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Sci.28:936, 1982

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Medical Education, Northwestern University Medical School and Northwestern University School of Education and Social Policy, 2-099 Ward Bldg., 303 E. Chicago Ave., 60611, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Michael M. Ravitch Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Michael M. Ravitch Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ravitch, M.M. Subjectivity in decision making: Common problems and limitations. World J. Surg. 13, 281–286 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01659035

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01659035

Keywords

  • Health Care
  • Decision Making
  • Patient Management
  • Como
  • Patient Preference