Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Threshold analysis in the presence of both the diagnostic and the therapeutic risk

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The well-established a priori probability of illness threshold in medical decision making, introduced by Pauker and Kassirer (N Engl J Med 293:229–234, 1975; N Engl J Med 302:1109–1117, 1980), involves the diagnostic risk only. We generalize the threshold analysis by adding the therapeutic risk, i.e., in accounting for the risk that a treatment might sometimes fail. We derive a priori probability of illness threshold as a function of the probability of successful treatment, as well as the inverted function, where the successful treatment probability threshold is a function of the a priori probability of illness. The thresholds in the general model are higher than those in the special cases where one of the two risks is absent. Applications show that the changes in the thresholds can be substantial. Our general model might explain empirical findings of much higher thresholds than the Pauker–Kassirer model suggests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, if health is measured in remaining life years and a successful treatment will lead to 10 remaining life years, no treatment to 7 remaining life years and unsuccessful treatment to 6 remaining life years, \(s_{d} = u\left( {10} \right) - u\left( 7 \right) > 0\) and \(f_{\text{d}} = u\left( 7 \right) - u\left( 6 \right) > 0\).

References

  1. Pauker, S.G., Kassirer, J.P.: Therapeutic decision making: a cost-benefit analysis. N. Engl. J. Med. 293, 229–234 (1975)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pauker, S.G., Kassirer, J.P.: The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N. Engl. J. Med. 302, 1109–1117 (1980)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Eeckhoudt, L.: Studies in risk and uncertainty. In: Risk and Medical Decision Making, vol. 14, Springer US, Boston, MA (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0991-2

  4. Eisenberg, J.M., Hershey, J.C.: Derived thresholds. Determining the diagnostic probabilities at which clinicians initiate testing and treatment. Med. Decis. Making 3, 155–168 (1983)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Young, M.J., Eisenberg, J.M., Williams, S.V., Hershey, J.C.: Comparing aggregate estimates of derived thresholds for clinical decisions. Health Serv. Res. 20, 763–780 (1986)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Basinga, P., Moreira, J., Bisoffi, Z., Bisig, B., Van den Ende, J.: Why are clinicians reluctant to treat smear-negative tuberculosis? An inquiry about treatment thresholds in Rwanda. Med. Decis. Making 27, 53–60 (2007)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sreeramareddy, C.T., Rahman, M., Harsha Kumar, H.N., et al.: Intuitive weights of harm for therapeutic decision making in smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis: an interview study of physicians in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Making 14, 67 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hozo, I., Djulbegovic, B.: When is diagnostic testing inappropriate or irrational? Acceptable regret approach. Med Decis Making 28, 540–553 (2008)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roy, P.M., Colombet, I., Durieux, P., Chatellier, G., Sors, H., Meyer, G.: Systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism. BMJ 331, 259 (2005)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hull, R.D.: Diagnosing pulmonary embolism with improved certainty and simplicity. JAMA 295, 213–215 (2006)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Haering, A., Heinrich, T., Mayrhofer T.: Exploring the consistency of higher-order risk preferences: Ruhr Economic Papers; 2017. Report No.: 3867887985

  12. Krieger, M., Mayrhofer, T.: Patient preferences and treatment thresholds under diagnostic risk. Ruhr Economic Papers No. 321, Essen, Germany (2012)

  13. Heinrich, T., Mayrhofer, T.: Higher-order risk preferences in social settings. Exp. Econ. 1–23 (2017)

  14. Eeckhoudt, L.R., Lebrun, T.C., Sailly, J.C.: The informative content of diagnostic tests: an economic analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 18, 873–880 (1984)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sox, H.C.: Medical decision making. American College of Physicians, Philadelphia (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Felder, S., Mayrhofer, T.: Risk preferences: consequences for test and treatment thresholds and optimal cutoffs. Med. Decis. Making 34, 33–41 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Djulbegovic, B., van den Ende, J., Hamm, R.M., et al.: When is it rational to order a diagnostic test, or prescribe treatment: the threshold model as an explanation of practice variation. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 45, 485–493 (2015)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Djulbegovic, B., Hozo, I., Schwartz, A., McMasters, K.M.: Acceptable regret in medical decision making. Med. Hypotheses 53, 253–259 (1999)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Djulbegovic, B., Hozo, I., Beckstead, J., Tsalatsanis, A., Pauker, S.G.: Dual processing model of medical decision-making. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 12, 94 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Mukherjee, K.: A dual system model of preferences under risk. Psychol. Rev. 117, 243–255 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wakker, P.P.: Lessons learned by (from?) an economist working in medical decision making. Med. Decis. Making. 28, 690–698 (2008)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Felder, S., Mayrhofer, T.: Introduction. In: Medical Decision Making. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53432-8_1

  23. Eeckhoudt, L., Lebrun, T., Sailly, J.C.: Risk-aversion and physicians’ medical decision-making. J Health Econ 4, 273–281 (1985)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Courbage, C., Rey, B.: Decision thresholds and changes in risk for preventive treatment. Health Econ. 25, 111–124 (2016)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Krieger, M., Mayrhofer, T.: Prudence and prevention: an economic laboratory experiment. Appl. Econ. Lett. 24, 19–24 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Courbage, C., Rey, B.: Prudence and optimal prevention for health risks. Health Econ. 15, 1323–1327 (2006)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C.: The impact of prudence on optimal prevention. Econ. Theor. 26, 989–994 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Berger, L., Bleichrodt, H., Eeckhoudt, L.: Treatment decisions under ambiguity. J. Health Econ. 32, 559–569 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Felder.

Appendix

Appendix

Curvature of the threshold functions

The treatment threshold function [Eq. (4)], the test threshold function [Eq. (8)] and the test-treatment threshold function [Eq. (10)] are all negatively sloped and convex. The proofs are analogous. We present the proof for the treatment threshold function.

Equation (4) can be transformed to

$$p^{Rx} \left( \pi \right) = \frac{{\pi s_{\text{h}} + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)f_{\text{h}} }}{{\pi \left( {s_{\text{h}} + s_{\text{d}} } \right) + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)\left( {f_{\text{h}} - f_{\text{d}} } \right)}}.$$
(13)

Then, the first derivative is negative

$$\frac{{\partial p^{Rx} \left( \pi \right)}}{\partial \pi } = - \frac{{f_{\text{d}} s_{\text{h}} + f_{\text{h}} s_{\text{d}} }}{{\left( {\pi \left( {s_{\text{h}} + s_{\text{d}} } \right) + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)\left( {f_{\text{h}} - f_{\text{d}} } \right)} \right)^{2} }} < 0$$
(14)

as \(s_{\text{d}} ,f_{\text{d}} ,s_{\text{h}} ,f_{\text{h}} > 0\). For the second derivative, we obtain

$$\frac{{\partial^{2} p^{Rx} \left( \pi \right)}}{{\partial \pi^{2} }} = 2\frac{{\left( {f_{\text{d}} s_{\text{h}} + f_{\text{h}} s_{\text{d}} } \right)\left( {s_{\text{h}} + s_{\text{d}} + f_{\text{d}} - f_{\text{h}} } \right)}}{{\left( {\pi \left( {s_{\text{h}} + s_{\text{d}} } \right) + \left( {1 - \pi } \right)\left( {f_{\text{h}} - f_{\text{d}} } \right)} \right)^{3} }} > 0,$$
(15)

which is positive provided that \(s_{\text{h}} + f_{\text{d}} + s_{\text{d}} > f_{\text{h}}\). The latter inequality is satisfied for \(0 \le p^{Rx} \left( \pi \right) \le 1\).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Felder, S., Mayrhofer, T. Threshold analysis in the presence of both the diagnostic and the therapeutic risk. Eur J Health Econ 19, 1019–1026 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0951-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0951-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation