Doctors and Numbers

Author:

Caverly Tanner J.1234,Prochazka Allan V.1234,Combs Brandon P.1234,Lucas Brian P.1234,Mueller Shane R.1234,Kutner Jean S.1234,Binswanger Ingrid1234,Fagerlin Angela1234,McCormick Jacqueline1234,Pfister Shirley1234,Matlock Daniel D.1234

Affiliation:

1. Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Health System, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI (TJC, AF)

2. Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO (AVP, BPC, SRM, JSK, IB, DDM)

3. Ambulatory Care, Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, CO (AVP, JM, SP)

4. Department of Medicine, John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, IL (BPL)

Abstract

Background. Risk interpretation affects decision making. Yet, there is no valid assessment of how clinicians interpret the risk data that they commonly encounter. Objective. To establish the reliability and validity of a 20-item test of clinicians’ risk interpretation. Methods. The Critical Risk Interpretation Test (CRIT) measures clinicians’ abilities to 1) modify the interpretation based on meaningful differences in the outcome (e.g., disease specific v. all-cause mortality) and time period (e.g., lifetime v. 10-year mortality), 2) maintain a stable interpretation for different risk framings (e.g., relative v. absolute risk), and 3) correctly interpret how diagnostic testing modifies risk. There were 658 clinicians and medical trainees who participated: 116 nurse practitioners (NPs) at a national conference, 273 medical students at 1 institution, 148 residents in internal medicine at 2 institutions, and 121 internists at 1 institution. Participants completed a self-administered paper test during educational conferences. Seventeen evidence-based medicine experts took the test online and formally assessed content validity. Eighteen second-year medical students were recruited to take the test and a retest 3 weeks later to explore test-retest correlation. Results. Expert review supported test clarity and content validity. Factor analysis supported that the CRIT identifies at least 3 separable areas of clinician knowledge. Test-retest correlation was fair (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.65; standard error = 0.15). Scores on our test correlated with other tests of related abilities. Mean test scores varied among groups, with differences in prior evidence-based medicine training and experience (93 for NPs, 101 for medical students, 101 for residents, 103 for academic internists, and 110 for physician experts; P < 0.001). Conclusions. Our results provide supporting evidence for the reliability and validity of the CRIT as an index of critical risk interpretation abilities, which is acceptable and feasible to administer in an educational setting.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Reference37 articles.

1. Eddy DM. Clinical Decision Making: From Theory to Practice. A Collection of Essays from the Journal of the American Medical Association. 1st ed. Boston: Jones & Bartlett; 1996.

2. Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients' preferences matter

3. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3