Search

Objective: To identify styles of physician decision making (as opposed to singular clinical actions) and to analyze their association with variations in the management of a vignette presentation of coronary heart disease (CHD)., Data Source: Primary data were collected from primary care physicians in North and South Carolina., Study Design: In a balanced factorial experimental design, primary care physicians viewed one of 16 (2(4)) video vignette presentations of CHD and provided detailed information about how they would manage the case., Data Collection Method: 256 MD primary care physicians were interviewed face-to-face in North and South Carolina., Principal Findings: We identify three clusters depicting unique styles of CHD management that are robust to controls for physician (gender and level of experience) and patient characteristics (age, gender, socioeconomic status, and race) as well as key organizational features of physicians' work settings. Physicians in Cluster 1 "Cardiac" (N = 92) were more likely to focus on cardiac issues compared with their counterparts; physicians in Cluster 2 "Talkers" (N = 93) were more likely to give advice and take additional medical history; whereas physicians in Cluster 3 "Minimalists" (N = 71) were less likely than their counterparts to take action on any of the types of management behavior., Conclusions: Variations in styles of decision making, which encompass multiple outcome variables and extend beyond individual-level demographic predictors, may add to our understanding of disparities in health quality and outcomes., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Literature on health disparities documents variations in clinical decision-making across patient characteristics, physician attributes, and among health care systems. Using data from a vignette-based factorial experiment of 256 primary care providers, we examine the cognitive basis of disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD). We explore whether previously observed disparities are due to physicians (1) not fully considering CHD for certain patients or (2) considering CHD but then discounting it. Half of the physicians in the experiment were primed with explicit directions to consider a CHD diagnosis, and half were not. Relative to their unprimed counterparts, primed physicians were more likely to order CHD-related tests and prescriptions. However, the main effects for patient gender and age remained, suggesting that physicians treated these demographic variables as diagnostic features indicating lower risk of CHD for these patients. This finding suggests that physician appeals to perceived base rates have the potential to contribute to the further reification of socially constructed health statistics.

Purpose: Lack of medication intensification is a widely recognized but poorly understood barrier to effective diabetes care. We used a video case vignette to assess whether patient or physician demographic variables influence the decision to intensify therapy., Methods: One hundred ninety-two US primary care physicians each viewed one case vignette of an actor portraying a patient who had type 2 diabetes and borderline indications for medication intensification. Case vignettes were clinically identical and differed only by patient age (35 or 65 years old); sex; race/ethnicity (white, Hispanic, or black); and socioeconomic status (occupation of lawyer or janitor). After viewing the vignette and indicating their management plans, physicians were also asked to discuss the challenges related to managing such a patient., Results: Just over half (53%) of physicians indicated that they would recommend a medication prescription for the vignette patient. Demographic characteristics (of the patient, physician, or practice) did not significantly influence this decision (P > .1 for all comparisons). Compared with physicians who did not recommend a diabetic-related prescription, physicians recommending therapy more often identified patient medication costs (74% vs 43% of physicians who would not increase therapy); medication adherence (63% vs 49%); and subsequent complications (34% vs 22%) as important clinical issues in managing diabetes. Physicians not intensifying therapy more often indicated that they needed more clinical information (16% vs 9%)., Conclusions: Using an experimental design we found that differences in the decision to intensify therapy were not significantly explained by patient, physician, or practice demographic variables. Physicians who intensified therapy were more likely to consider issues such as medication costs, patient adherence, and downstream complications.

Nonmedical factors and diagnostic certainty contribute to variation in clinical decision making, but the process by which this occurs remains unclear. We examine how physicians' interpretations of patient sex-gender affect diagnostic certainty and, in turn, decision making for coronary heart disease. Data are from a factorial experiment of 256 physicians who viewed 1 of 16 video vignettes with different patient-actors presenting the same symptoms of coronary heart disease. Physician participants completed a structured interview and provided a narrative about their decision-making processes. Quantitative analysis showed that diagnostic uncertainty reduces the likelihood that physicians will order tests and medications appropriate for an urgent cardiac condition in particular. Qualitative analysis revealed that a subset of physicians applied knowledge that women have "atypical symptoms" as a generalization, which engendered uncertainty for some. Findings are discussed in relation to social-psychological processes that underlie clinical decision making and the social framing of medical knowledge. (Contains 3 notes, 1 table and 1 figure.)