Cargando…

Dual Processing Model for Medical Decision-Making: An Extension to Diagnostic Testing

Dual Processing Theories (DPT) assume that human cognition is governed by two distinct types of processes typically referred to as type 1 (intuitive) and type 2 (deliberative). Based on DPT we have derived a Dual Processing Model (DPM) to describe and explain therapeutic medical decision-making. The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tsalatsanis, Athanasios, Hozo, Iztok, Kumar, Ambuj, Djulbegovic, Benjamin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526559/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26244571
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134800
_version_ 1782384427443159040
author Tsalatsanis, Athanasios
Hozo, Iztok
Kumar, Ambuj
Djulbegovic, Benjamin
author_facet Tsalatsanis, Athanasios
Hozo, Iztok
Kumar, Ambuj
Djulbegovic, Benjamin
author_sort Tsalatsanis, Athanasios
collection PubMed
description Dual Processing Theories (DPT) assume that human cognition is governed by two distinct types of processes typically referred to as type 1 (intuitive) and type 2 (deliberative). Based on DPT we have derived a Dual Processing Model (DPM) to describe and explain therapeutic medical decision-making. The DPM model indicates that doctors decide to treat when treatment benefits outweigh its harms, which occurs when the probability of the disease is greater than the so called “threshold probability” at which treatment benefits are equal to treatment harms. Here we extend our work to include a wider class of decision problems that involve diagnostic testing. We illustrate applicability of the proposed model in a typical clinical scenario considering the management of a patient with prostate cancer. To that end, we calculate and compare two types of decision-thresholds: one that adheres to expected utility theory (EUT) and the second according to DPM. Our results showed that the decisions to administer a diagnostic test could be better explained using the DPM threshold. This is because such decisions depend on objective evidence of test/treatment benefits and harms as well as type 1 cognition of benefits and harms, which are not considered under EUT. Given that type 1 processes are unique to each decision-maker, this means that the DPM threshold will vary among different individuals. We also showed that when type 1 processes exclusively dominate decisions, ordering a diagnostic test does not affect a decision; the decision is based on the assessment of benefits and harms of treatment. These findings could explain variations in the treatment and diagnostic patterns documented in today’s clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4526559
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45265592015-08-12 Dual Processing Model for Medical Decision-Making: An Extension to Diagnostic Testing Tsalatsanis, Athanasios Hozo, Iztok Kumar, Ambuj Djulbegovic, Benjamin PLoS One Research Article Dual Processing Theories (DPT) assume that human cognition is governed by two distinct types of processes typically referred to as type 1 (intuitive) and type 2 (deliberative). Based on DPT we have derived a Dual Processing Model (DPM) to describe and explain therapeutic medical decision-making. The DPM model indicates that doctors decide to treat when treatment benefits outweigh its harms, which occurs when the probability of the disease is greater than the so called “threshold probability” at which treatment benefits are equal to treatment harms. Here we extend our work to include a wider class of decision problems that involve diagnostic testing. We illustrate applicability of the proposed model in a typical clinical scenario considering the management of a patient with prostate cancer. To that end, we calculate and compare two types of decision-thresholds: one that adheres to expected utility theory (EUT) and the second according to DPM. Our results showed that the decisions to administer a diagnostic test could be better explained using the DPM threshold. This is because such decisions depend on objective evidence of test/treatment benefits and harms as well as type 1 cognition of benefits and harms, which are not considered under EUT. Given that type 1 processes are unique to each decision-maker, this means that the DPM threshold will vary among different individuals. We also showed that when type 1 processes exclusively dominate decisions, ordering a diagnostic test does not affect a decision; the decision is based on the assessment of benefits and harms of treatment. These findings could explain variations in the treatment and diagnostic patterns documented in today’s clinical practice. Public Library of Science 2015-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4526559/ /pubmed/26244571 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134800 Text en © 2015 Tsalatsanis et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tsalatsanis, Athanasios
Hozo, Iztok
Kumar, Ambuj
Djulbegovic, Benjamin
Dual Processing Model for Medical Decision-Making: An Extension to Diagnostic Testing
title Dual Processing Model for Medical Decision-Making: An Extension to Diagnostic Testing
title_full Dual Processing Model for Medical Decision-Making: An Extension to Diagnostic Testing
title_fullStr Dual Processing Model for Medical Decision-Making: An Extension to Diagnostic Testing
title_full_unstemmed Dual Processing Model for Medical Decision-Making: An Extension to Diagnostic Testing
title_short Dual Processing Model for Medical Decision-Making: An Extension to Diagnostic Testing
title_sort dual processing model for medical decision-making: an extension to diagnostic testing
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526559/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26244571
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134800
work_keys_str_mv AT tsalatsanisathanasios dualprocessingmodelformedicaldecisionmakinganextensiontodiagnostictesting
AT hozoiztok dualprocessingmodelformedicaldecisionmakinganextensiontodiagnostictesting
AT kumarambuj dualprocessingmodelformedicaldecisionmakinganextensiontodiagnostictesting
AT djulbegovicbenjamin dualprocessingmodelformedicaldecisionmakinganextensiontodiagnostictesting