ArticleJournal of medical systems2020
Readmission Risk Assessment Technologies and the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Approximately 23% of patients discharged from primary healthcare facilities are readmitted within 30 days at an annual cost of roughly $42 billion. To remedy this problem, healthcare providers are attempting to deploy readmission risk estimation tools, but how they might be used in the traditional, human-expert-centered decision process is not well understood. One such tool estimates readmission risk based on 50 patient-specific factors. This paper reports on a study performed in collaboration with Order of St. Francis Healthcare to determine how healthcare workers' own risk estimates are influenced by the tool, specifically testing the hypothesis that they will first anchor towards tool results while making adjustments based on their expertise, and then make further adjustments when additional human expert opinions are presented. Task analysis was performed, fictional patient scenarios were developed, and a survey of 56 subjects in two stratified groups of case managers was conducted. Data from the control and experiment groups were analyzed using ANOVA/GLM and t-tests. Results indicate that the healthcare workers' risk estimates were influenced by the anchor provided by the tool, then adjusted based on their expertise. The workers further adjusted their estimates in response to new expert human inputs. Thus, a reliance on both the predictive model and human expertise was observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32030458What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.