The influence of cost-effectiveness information on physicians' cancer screening recommendations

被引:29
作者
Ubel, PA
Jepson, C
Baron, J
Hershey, JC
Asch, DA
机构
[1] Univ Michigan, Program Improving Hlth Care Decis, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[2] VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Syst, VA Hlth Serv, Res & Dev Ctr Excellence, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[3] Univ Michigan, Div Gen Internal Med, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[4] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Div Gen Internal Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[5] Univ Penn, Leonard Davis Inst Hlth Econ, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[6] Univ Penn, Dept Psychol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[7] Univ Penn, Wharton Sch, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[8] Vet Affairs Med Ctr, Philadelphia, PA USA
关键词
decision making; physician survey; cost-effectiveness; USA;
D O I
10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00167-3
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Physicians are increasingly faced with choices in which one screening strategy is both more effective and more expensive than another. One way to make such choices is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the more costly strategy over the less costly one. However, little is known about how cost-effectiveness information influences physicians' screening decisions. We surveyed 900 primary care US physicians, and presented each with a hypothetical cancer-screening scenario. We created three familiar screening scenarios, involving cervical, colon, and breast cancer. We also created three unfamiliar screening scenarios. Physicians were randomized to receive one of nine questionnaires, each containing one screening scenario. Three questionnaires posed one of the familiar screening scenarios without cost-effectiveness information, three posed one of the familiar scenarios with cost-effectiveness information, and three posed one of the unfamiliar scenarios with cost-effectiveness information. The cost-effectiveness information for familiar scenarios was drawn from the medical literature. The cost-effectiveness information for unfamiliar scenarios was fabricated to match that of a corresponding familiar scenario. In all questionnaires, physicians were asked what screening alternative they would recommend. A total of 560 physicians responded (65%). For familiar scenarios, providing cost-effectiveness information had at most a small influence on physicians' screening recommendations; it reduced the proportion of physicians recommending annual Pap smears (p = 0.003), but did not significantly alter the aggressiveness of colon cancer and breast cancer screening (both p's < 0.1). For all three unfamiliar scenarios, physicians were significantly less likely to recommend expensive screening strategies than in corresponding familiar scenarios (all p's < 0.001). Physicians' written explanations revealed a number of factors that moderated the influence of cost-effectiveness information on their screening recommendations. Providing physicians with cost-effectiveness information had only a moderate influence on their screening recommendations for cervical, colon, and breast cancer. Significantly, fewer physicians recommended aggressive screening for unfamiliar cancers than for familiar ones, despite similar cost-effectiveness. Physicians are relatively reluctant to abandon common screening strategies, even when they learn that they are expensive, and are hesitant to adopt unfamiliar screening strategies, even when they learn that they are inexpensive. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:1727 / 1736
页数:10
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]   COST CONTAINMENT AND THE PHYSICIAN [J].
ANGELL, M .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1985, 254 (09) :1203-1207
[2]   Conducting physician mail surveys on a limited budget - A randomized trial comparing $2 bill versus $5 bill incentives [J].
Asch, DA ;
Christakis, NA ;
Ubel, PA .
MEDICAL CARE, 1998, 36 (01) :95-99
[3]   Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals [J].
Asch, DA ;
Jedrziewski, MK ;
Christakis, NA .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (10) :1129-1136
[4]   USE AND MISUSE OF THE TERM COST-EFFECTIVE IN MEDICINE [J].
DOUBILET, P ;
WEINSTEIN, MC ;
MCNEIL, BJ .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1986, 314 (04) :253-256
[5]   COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS - A CONVERSATION WITH MY FATHER [J].
EDDY, DM .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1992, 267 (12) :1669-&
[6]  
Gold MR, 1996, COST EFFECTIVENESS H
[7]   PROTECTING MEDICAL COMMONS - WHO IS RESPONSIBLE [J].
HIATT, HH .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1975, 293 (05) :235-241
[8]  
LAUPACIS A, 1992, CAN MED ASSOC J, V146, P473
[9]   THE DOCTORS MASTER [J].
LEVINSKY, NG .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1984, 311 (24) :1573-1575
[10]   Are pharmaceuticals cost-effective? A review of the evidence [J].
Neumann, PJ ;
Sandberg, EA ;
Bell, CM ;
Stone, PW ;
Chapman, RH .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2000, 19 (02) :92-109