Advertisement

Pharmaceutisch Weekblad

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 9–15 | Cite as

Therapeutic decision making of physicians

  • P. Denig
  • F. M. Haaijer-Ruskamp
Reviews

Abstract

In this review the therapeutic decision-making process of physicians is described. This process is divided into two steps: the generation of a limited set of possible options (the ‘evoked set’) and the selection from this evoked set of a treatment for a specific patient. Factors that are important in both steps are reviewed. Behavioural and decision-making theories in general and decision-making analysis of physicians in particular are discussed to identify possible shortcomings in their decision-making process. Based on this information a model of the drug choice process is presented. With reference to this model possible ways of influencing drug choices of physicians are discussed.

Keywords

Physicians Decision making Prescriptions, drug Choice behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Drug-utilization studies in the Netherlands. Pharm Weekbl [Sci] 1990;12(2):91–6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Plumridge RJ. Intervention strategies aimed at modifying prescribing behavior. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1984;14(3):93–100.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haynes RB, Davis DA, McKibbon A, Tugwell P. A critical appraisal of the efficacy of CME. JAMA 1984;251(1):61–4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horder J, Bosanquet N, Stocking B. Ways of influencing the behaviour of general practitioners. J R Coll Gen Pract 1986;36:517–21.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schroeder SA. Strategies for reducing medical costs by changing physicians' behavior. Int J Technol Assess 1987;3:35–50.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soumerai SB, McLaughlin TJ, Avorn J. Improving drug prescribing in primary care: a critical analysis of the experimental literature. Milbank Quart 1989;67(2):268–317.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sprij B, Casparie AF, Grol R. Interventiemethoden om een verandering in de medische praktijkvoering te bewerkstelligen; wat is effectief? [Intervention methods to alter practice patterns: what is effective?]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1989;133(22):1115–8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Plumridge RJ, Berbatis CG. Drug bulletins: effectiveness in modifying prescribing and methods of improving impact. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1989;23:330–4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evans CE, Haynes RB, Birkett NJ, Gilbert JR, Taylor DW, Sacket DL, et al. Does a mailed continuing education program improve physician performance? JAMA 1986;255(4):501–4.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denig P, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Zijsling DM. The impact of a drug bulletin on knowledge, drug evaluation and prescribing of physicians. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1990;24(1):87–93.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hemminki E. Review of literature on the factors affecting drug prescribing. Soc Sci Med 1975;9(2):111–5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Het voorschrijfgedrag van de huisarts [The prescribing behaviour of the general practitioner] [dissertation]. Groningen: Univ of Groningen, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mokkink HGA. Ziekenfondscijfers als parameter voor het handelen van huisartsen [Sickness-fund figures as indicator of the behaviour of general practitioners] [dissertation]. Nijmegen: Catholic Univ Nijmegen, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cannoodt L. Informatieverwerving en andere determinanten van het voorschrijfgedrag van huisartsen in Vlaanderen [Information acquisition and other determinants of the prescribing behaviour of general practitioners in Flanders]. Gezondh Samenleving 1987;8(4):231–40.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grol R, Whitfield M, De Maeseneer J, Mokkink H. Attitudes to risk taking in medical decision making among British, Dutch and Belgian general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract 1990;40:134–6.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mantel AF, Wierenga B, Wolf P, Veerman CP. De Nederlandse geneesmiddelenmarkt in observatie [The Dutch drug market in observation]. Delft: Eburon, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Denig P, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Wesseling H, Versluis A. Drug choice behaviour: is it reasoned? In: Brenner G, Weber I, eds. Health services research and primary health care. Proceedings of the Second European Conference; 1990 Dec 14–15; Cologne. Cologne: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag, 1991:136–9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williamson PM. How general practitioners assess risks in using new drugs. J Roy Coll Gen Pract 1975;25:383–6.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller RR. Prescribing habits of physicians. A review of studies on prescribing of drugs. Parts VII–VIII. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1974;8:81–91.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peay MY, Peay ER. Differences among practitioners in patterns of preference for information sources in the adoption of new drugs. Soc Sci Med 1984;18(12):1019–25.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Osiobe SA. Use of information resources by health professionals. Soc Sci Med 1985;21(9):965–73.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peay MY, Peay ER. Patterns of preference for information sources in the adoption of new drugs by specialists. Soc Sci Med 1990;31(4):467–76.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taylor RF, Bond CM. Change in the established prescribing habits of general practitioners: an analysis of initial prescriptions in general practice. Br J Gem Pract 1991;41:244–8.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Jonge M, Keijzers M. Farmaceutische communicatie, een specialisme [Pharmaceutical communication, a specialism]. Eindhoven: Hogeschool Eindhoven HEAO communicatie, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ferm MA, Smith MC. Advertising. In: Smith MC, ed. Principles of pharmaceutical marketing. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1983:369–99.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klein T. Detailing and other forms of promotion. In: Smith MC, ed. Principles of pharmaceutical marketing. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1983:400–17.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kawachi I., Wilson N. The evolution of antihypertensive therapy. Soc Sci Med 1990;31(11):1239–43.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lexchin J. Doctors and detailers: therapeutic education or pharmaceutical promotion. Int J Health Serv 1989;19(4):663–79.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hepler CD, Clyne KE, Donta ST. Rationales expressed by empiric antibiotic prescribers. Am J Hosp Pharm 1982;39:1647–55.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moskowitz AJ, Kuipers BJ, Kassirer JP. Dealing with uncertainty, risks, and tradeoffs in clinical decisions. A cognitive science approach. Ann Intern Med 1988;108(3):435–49.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Deber RB, Goel V. Using explicit decision rules to manage issues of justice, risk, and ethics in decision analysis: when is it not rational to maximize expected utility? Med Decis Making 1990;10 (3):181–94.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chaiken S, Stangor C. Attitudes and attitude change. Ann Rev Psychol 1987;38:575–630.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hershey JC, Baron J. Clinical reasoning and cognitive processes. Med Decis Making 1987;7(4):203–11.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mancuso CA, Rose DN. A model for physicians' therapeutic decision making. Arch Intern Med 1987;147:1281–5.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Snoek JW. Het denken van de neuroloog [Reasoning in neurology] [dissertation]. Groningen: Univ of Groningen, 1989.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zelnio RN. The interaction among the criteria physicians use when prescribing. Med Care 1982;20(3):277–85.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Segal R, Hepler CD. Prescribers' beliefs and values as predictors of drug choices. Am J Hosp Pharm 1982;39:1891–7.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Epstein AM, Read JL, Winickoff R. Physician beliefs, attitudes and prescribing behavior for anti-inflammatory drugs. Am J Med 1984;77:313–8.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Segal R, Hepler CD. Drug choice as a problem solving process. Med Care 1985;23(8):967–76.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Denig P, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Zijsling DM. How physicians choose drugs. Soc Sci Med 1988;27(12):1381–6.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Janknegt R, Steenhoek A. De behandeling van een ‘eenvoudige’ cystitis; een preparaatkeuze volgens de SOJA-methode [Treatment of an acute uncomplicated cystitis; drug selection by the SOJA method]. TGO 1988;13(8):275–8.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Janknegt R, Smelik J, Steenhoek A. Bètablokkers: keuzecriteria en produktvoorkeur. Resultaten van een onderzoek bij vijftig huisartsen [Beta blockers: selection criteria and preference. Results of an investigation among fifty general practitioners]. Pharm Weekbl 1990;125(27):676–80.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kirwan JR, Chaput de Saintonge DM, Joyce CRB, Holmes J, Currey HLF. Inability of rheumatologists to describe their true policies for assessing rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1986;45:156–61.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vlek Ch. Modellen en methoden voor het begrijpen en verbeteren van beslissingen [Models and methods to understand and improve decisions]. In: Van Knippenberg AFM, Michon A, Rothengatter JA, eds. Handboek sociale verkeerskunde [Handbook social intercourses]. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1989.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nightingale SD. Risk preference and laboratory use. Med Decis Making 1987;7(3):168–73.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Feinstein AR. The ‘chagrin factor’ and qualitative decision analysis. Arch Intern Med 1985;145:1257–9.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wolff N. Professional uncertainty and physician medical decision-making in a multiple treatment framework. Soc Sci Med 1989;28(2):99–107.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Eddy DM. Variations in physician practices: the role of uncertainty. Health Affairs 1984:74–89.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974;185:1124–31.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Brehmer B. In one word: not from experience. Acta Psychol 1980;45:223–41.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sacket DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology. A basic science for clinical medicine. Boston: Little Brown & Company, 1985.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schroeder SA, Meyers LP, McPhee J, Showstack JA, Simborg DW, Chapman SA, et al. Failure of physician education as a cost containment strategy. JAMA 1984;252(2):225–8.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Avorn J, Harvey K, Soumerai SB, Herxheimer A, Plumridge R, Bardelay G. Information and education as determinants of antibiotic use. Rev Infect Dis 1987;9 Suppl 3:S286–96.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Denig P. De behandeling van spasmen van holle organen [The treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and renal colic]. Geneesmiddelenbulletin 1987;21(13):69–72.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zijlstra IF, Gribnau FWJ, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Post D, Reddingius PF, Wesseling H, et al. Tussen wens en werkelijkheid. Deel I: geneesmiddelen bij peptische aandoeningen in de huisartspraktijk [Between ideal and reality. Part I: drugs for peptic disorders in general practice]. Huisarts Wetenschap 1991;34(4):158–65.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rosser WW. Using the perception-reality gap to alter prescribing patterns. J Med Educ 1983;58:728–32.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shenfield L, Jones AN. Effects of restrictions on prescribing patterns for dextropropoxyphene. BMJ 1980;281:651–3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Dutch Association for Advancement of Pharmacy 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Denig
    • 1
  • F. M. Haaijer-Ruskamp
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HealthSciences/Northern Centre for Healthcare ResearchAV GroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations