Weighing Harm in Therapeutic Decisions of Smear-Negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis

Abstract

Purpose. To relate the intuitive weight of harm by commission and harm by omission in therapeutic decisions for pulmonary tuberculosis, and to compare it with a weight based on probabilities. Methods. Clinicians were asked for an estimation of probabilities related with the outcome of treated and nontreated pulmonary tuberculosis and for the toll of wrong decisions. Three ratios of the weight of forgoing a treatment in false-negative patients against the weight of treating false-positives were calculated. The first was based on intuitive estimations, whereas the second and third were based on calculated, either through intuitive estimations of probabilities or through literature data. The association between experience and the difference between the intuitive and the calculated ratios was assessed. Results. Eighty-one participants from Ecuador, Laos, Nepal, and Rwanda responded. The ratio of intuitive weights was 2.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.0—4.0) and the ratio of calculated weights based on intuitive probabilities was 64 (IQR, 25.0—169.6; P < 0.001). The ratio of calculated weight based on literature probabilities was 30 (IQR, 17.9—59.2). No association (R² = 0.03) was found between experience and accuracy in estimating the weight of errors. Conclusion. The weight of a false negative is more important than the weight of a false positive for therapeutic decisions in pulmonary tuberculosis. The ratio of the intuitively estimated weights was much lower than the calculation based on intuitively estimated influencing factors. Clinicians were accurate in estimating probabilities but failed to incorporate them into therapeutic decisions.

Keywords

omission bias pulmonary tuberculosis therapeutic decisions decision threshold decision theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

World Health Organisation. Global Tuberculosis Control- Surveillance, Planning, Financing. WHO Report 2005. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2005.

Baltussen R. , Floyd K. , Dye C. Cost effectiveness analysis of strategies for tuberculosis control in developing countries. BMJ. 2005;331:1364-70.

Pauker SG , Kassirer JP Therapeutic decision making: a costbenefit analysis. N Engl J Med. 1975;293:229-34.

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. 2007;27:53-60.

Zikmund-Fisher BJ , Sarr B. , Fagerlin A. , Ubel PA A matter of perspective: choosing for others differs from choosing for yourself in making treatment decisions. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:618-22.

Asch DA , Baron J. , Hershey JC , Kunreuther H. , Meszaros J. , Ritov I. , et al. Omission bias and pertussis vaccination. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:118-23.

Ritov I. , Baron J. Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. J Behav Decis Making. 1990;3:263-77.

Dekay ML The difference between Blackstone-like error ratios and the probabilistics standards of proof. Law and Social Inquiry. 1996;21:95-132.

Hunink M. , Glasziou P. , Siegel J. , Weeks J. , Pliskin J. , Elstein AS , et al. Decision Making in Health and Medicine. Integrating Evidence and Values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.