Dataset Information

Similarity of expert clinicians' rank order of differential diagnoses in a newborn resuscitation context.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We tested principles that could lead to a future cognitive aid that offers an interpretation of the newborn's physiological state during resuscitation after birth. Using concordance among experts' interpretations of newborn vital sign patterns as an approximation for an algorithm that could provide an interpretation of the newborn's state, we explored the reliability and generalisability of experts' interpretations.

Methods

Twelve neonatal experts viewed eight pairs of graphical trajectories showing newborns' heart rate and oxygen saturation records supplemented with differential diagnoses elicited previously from other experts. Each pair of trajectories included one trajectory on which the original differential diagnoses had been based, and a similar but novel trajectory to which the original differential diagnoses were now generalised. For each trajectory, experts ranked the differential diagnoses according to their likelihood. We calculated how similar the new experts' ranking was to the original experts' ranking for both original and novel trajectories. We used descriptive categories to interpret the strength of the similarity.

Results

For the original and novel trajectories, the experts' rank ordering of differential diagnoses was mostly moderately to substantially similar to the original rank ordering by the original participants. There were mostly small differences in similarity scores between the paired original and novel trajectories; fewer than 25% of the participants suggested an alternative differential diagnosis.

Conclusions

The concordance of experts' interpretations could serve as an approximation of the newborn's physiological state, and the interpretations could be generalised. The results may justify pursuing an algorithm to underpin a cognitive aid.

SUBMITTER: Zestic J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9256641 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Increasing numbers of patients consult Web-based rating platforms before making health care decisions. These platforms often provide ratings from other patients, reflecting their subjective experience. However, patients often lack the knowledge to be able to judge the objective quality of health services. To account for this potential bias, many rating platforms complement patient ratings with more objective expert ratings, which can lead to conflicting signals as these different types of evaluations are not always aligned. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to fill the gap on how consumers combine information from 2 different sources-patients or experts-to form opinions and make purchase decisions in a health care context. More specifically, we assessed prospective patients' decision making when considering both types of ratings simultaneously on a Web-based rating platform. In addition, we examined how the influence of patient and expert ratings is conditional upon rating volume (ie, the number of patient opinions). METHODS:In a field study, we analyzed a dataset from a Web-based physician rating platform containing clickstream data for more than 5000 US doctors. We complemented this with an experimental lab study consisting of a sample of 112 students from a Dutch university. The average age was 23.1 years, and 60.7% (68/112) of the respondents were female. RESULTS:The field data illustrated the moderating effect of rating volume. If the patient advice was based on small numbers, prospective patients tended to base their selection of a physician on expert rather than patient advice (profile clicks beta=.14, P<.001; call clicks beta=.28, P=.03). However, when the group of patients substantially grew in size, prospective patients started to rely on patients rather than the expert (profile clicks beta=.23, SE=0.07, P=.004; call clicks beta=.43, SE=0.32, P=.10). The experimental study replicated and validated these findings for conflicting patient versus expert advice in a controlled setting. When patient ratings were aggregated from a high number of opinions, prospective patients' evaluations were affected more strongly by patient than expert advice (meanpatient positive/expert negative=3.06, SD=0.94; meanexpert positive/patient negative=2.55, SD=0.89; F1,108=4.93, P=.03). Conversely, when patient ratings were aggregated from a low volume, participants were affected more strongly by expert compared with patient advice (meanpatient positive/expert negative=2.36, SD=0.76; meanexpert positive/patient negative=3.01, SD=0.81; F1,108=8.42, P=.004). This effect occurred despite the fact that they considered the patients to be less knowledgeable than experts. CONCLUSIONS:When confronted with information from both sources simultaneously, prospective patients are influenced more strongly by other patients. This effect reverses when the patient rating has been aggregated from a (very) small number of individual opinions. This has important implications for how to present health care provider ratings to prospective patients to aid their decision-making process.

Project description:BackgroundMany physiological aspects of the neonatal transition after birth are unobservable because relevant sensors do not yet exist, compromising clinicians' understanding of a neonate's physiological status. Given that a neonate's true physiological state is currently unavailable, we explored the feasibility of using clinicians' degree of concordance as an approximation of the true physiological state.MethodsTwo phases of structured interviews were conducted. In Phase 1 (N = 8) and Phase 2 (N = 12), we presented neonatal experts with eight graphical trajectories of real newborns' heart rate and oxygen saturation values in the first 10-15 min after birth. We elicited the participants' interpretations of potential underlying physiological conditions that could explain the vital sign patterns.ResultsThe global differential diagnosis data for each phase produced the same pattern of results: (1) four trajectories produced a substantial degree of concordance among clinicians (61-80%) and (2) four trajectories produced a strong degree of concordance among clinicians (81-100%).ConclusionsIt is possible to achieve a strong degree of concordance among neonatal experts' interpretations of newborn trajectories. Thus, using the degree of concordance as an approximation of the neonate's true physiological state in resuscitation after birth may be a promising direction to explore for cognitive aid design.ImpactDifferential diagnoses with a good degree of concordance among expert neonatal clinicians could potentially substitute in part for the direct measurement of key physiological and anatomical variables of the neonatal transition, which is currently unavailable. The concordance of clinicians' judgements or inferences with regards to the true physiological state of the newborn during resuscitation after birth has never been explored. The findings provide a crucial first step toward using consensus of neonatal experts' judgements in the design of a cognitive aid to support clinicians' management of the newborns who require resuscitation after birth.