Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 10/2012

01-10-2012 | Original Research

Do First Opinions Affect Second Opinions?

Authors: Geva Vashitz, PhD, Joseph S. Pliskin, PhD, Yisrael Parmet, PhD, Yona Kosashvili, MD, Gal Ifergane, MD, Shlomo Wientroub, MD, Nadav Davidovitch, MD, PhD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 10/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Second medical opinions have become commonplace and even mandatory in some health-care systems, as variations in diagnosis, treatment or prognosis may emerge among physicians.

Objective

To evaluate whether physicians’ judgment is affected by another medical opinion given to a patient.

Design

Orthopedic surgeons and neurologists filled out questionnaires presenting eight hypothetical clinical scenarios with suggested treatments. One group of physicians (in each specialty) was told what the other physician’s opinion was (study group), and the other group was not told what it was (control group).

Participants

A convenience sample of 332 physicians in Israel: 172 orthopedic surgeons (45.9% of their population) and 160 neurologists (64.0% of their population).

Measurements

Scoring was by choice of less or more interventional treatment in the scenarios. We used χ2 tests and repeated measures ANOVA to compare these scores between the two groups. We also fitted a cumulative ordinal regression to account for the dependence within each physician’s responses.

Results

Orthopedic surgeons in the study group chose a more interventionist treatment when the other physician suggested an intervention than those in the control group [F (1, 170) = 4.6, p = 0.03; OR = 1.437, 95% CI 1.115-1.852]. Evaluating this effect separately in each scenario showed that in four out of the eight scenarios, they chose a more interventional treatment when the other physician suggested an intervention (scenario 1, p = 0.039; scenario 2, p < 0.001; scenario 3, p = 0.033; scenario 6, p < 0.001). These effects were insignificant among the neurologists [F (1,158) = 0.44, p = 0.51; OR = 1.087, 95% CI 0.811-1.458]. In both specialties there were no differences in responses by level of clinical experience [orthopedic surgeons: F (2, 166) = 0.752, p = 0.473; neurologists: F (2,154) = 1.951, p = 0.146].

Conclusions

The exploratory survey showed that in some cases physicians’ judgments may be affected by other physicians’ opinions, but unaffected in other cases. Weighing previous opinions may yield a more informed clinical decision, yet physicians may be unintentionally influenced by previous opinions. Second opinion has the potential to improve the clinical decision-making processes, and mechanisms are needed to reconcile discrepant opinions.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gertman PM, Stackpole DA, Levenson DK, Manuel BM, Brennan RJ, Janko GM. Second opinions for elective surgery. The mandatory Medicaid program in Massachusetts. N Engl J Med. 1980;302(21):1169–74.PubMedCrossRef Gertman PM, Stackpole DA, Levenson DK, Manuel BM, Brennan RJ, Janko GM. Second opinions for elective surgery. The mandatory Medicaid program in Massachusetts. N Engl J Med. 1980;302(21):1169–74.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Althabe F, Belizan JM, Villar J, et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363(9425):1934–40.PubMedCrossRef Althabe F, Belizan JM, Villar J, et al. Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;363(9425):1934–40.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Graboys TB, Biegelsen B, Lampert S, Blatt CM, Lown B. Results of a second-opinion trial among patients recommended for coronary angiography. JAMA. 1992;268(18):2537–40.PubMedCrossRef Graboys TB, Biegelsen B, Lampert S, Blatt CM, Lown B. Results of a second-opinion trial among patients recommended for coronary angiography. JAMA. 1992;268(18):2537–40.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Han KS, Joung JY, Cho KS, et al. Results of repeated transurethral resection for a second opinion in patients referred for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer: The referral cancer center experience and review of the literature. J Endourol. 2008;22(12):2699–704.PubMedCrossRef Han KS, Joung JY, Cho KS, et al. Results of repeated transurethral resection for a second opinion in patients referred for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer: The referral cancer center experience and review of the literature. J Endourol. 2008;22(12):2699–704.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Kronz JD, Westra WH. The role of second opinion pathology in the management of lesions of the head and neck. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;13(2):81–4.PubMedCrossRef Kronz JD, Westra WH. The role of second opinion pathology in the management of lesions of the head and neck. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;13(2):81–4.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Briggs GM, Flynn PA, Worthington M, Rennie I, McKinstry CS. The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: Is there added value? Clin Radiol. 2008;63(7):791–5.PubMedCrossRef Briggs GM, Flynn PA, Worthington M, Rennie I, McKinstry CS. The role of specialist neuroradiology second opinion reporting: Is there added value? Clin Radiol. 2008;63(7):791–5.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tomaszewski JE, Bear HD, Connally JA, et al. Consensus conference on second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology. Who, what, and when. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114(3):329–35.PubMed Tomaszewski JE, Bear HD, Connally JA, et al. Consensus conference on second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology. Who, what, and when. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114(3):329–35.PubMed
8.
go back to reference McSherry CK, Chen PJ, Worner TM, Kupferstein N, McCarthy EG. Second surgical opinion programs: Dead or alive? J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185(5):451–6.PubMed McSherry CK, Chen PJ, Worner TM, Kupferstein N, McCarthy EG. Second surgical opinion programs: Dead or alive? J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185(5):451–6.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Vierhout WP, Knottnerus JA, van Ooij A, et al. Effectiveness of joint consultation sessions of general practitioners and orthopedic surgeons for locomotor-system disorders. Lancet. 1995;346(8981):990–4.PubMedCrossRef Vierhout WP, Knottnerus JA, van Ooij A, et al. Effectiveness of joint consultation sessions of general practitioners and orthopedic surgeons for locomotor-system disorders. Lancet. 1995;346(8981):990–4.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Graboys TB, Headley A, Lown B, Lampert S, Blatt CM. Results of a second-opinion program for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA. 1987;258(12):1611–4.PubMedCrossRef Graboys TB, Headley A, Lown B, Lampert S, Blatt CM. Results of a second-opinion program for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA. 1987;258(12):1611–4.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Meyer JE, Eberlein TJ, Stomper PC, Sonnenfeld MR. Biopsy of occult breast lesions. analysis of 1261abnormalities. JAMA. 1990;263(17):2341–3.PubMedCrossRef Meyer JE, Eberlein TJ, Stomper PC, Sonnenfeld MR. Biopsy of occult breast lesions. analysis of 1261abnormalities. JAMA. 1990;263(17):2341–3.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1551–6.PubMedCrossRef Morrow M, Jagsi R, Alderman AK, et al. Surgeon recommendations and receipt of mastectomy for treatment of breast cancer. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1551–6.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Rosenberg SN, Allen DR, Handte JS, et al. Effect of utilization review in a fee-for-service health insurance plan. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(20):1326–30.PubMedCrossRef Rosenberg SN, Allen DR, Handte JS, et al. Effect of utilization review in a fee-for-service health insurance plan. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(20):1326–30.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Myers SA, Gleicher N. A successful program to lower cesarean-section rates. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(23):1511–6.PubMedCrossRef Myers SA, Gleicher N. A successful program to lower cesarean-section rates. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(23):1511–6.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Wagner TH, Wagner LS. Who gets second opinions? Health Aff (Millwood). 1999;18(5):137–45.CrossRef Wagner TH, Wagner LS. Who gets second opinions? Health Aff (Millwood). 1999;18(5):137–45.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Coblentz TR, Mills SE, Theodorescu D. Impact of second opinion pathology in the definitive management of patients with bladder carcinoma. Cancer. 2001;91(7):1284–90.PubMedCrossRef Coblentz TR, Mills SE, Theodorescu D. Impact of second opinion pathology in the definitive management of patients with bladder carcinoma. Cancer. 2001;91(7):1284–90.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20(7):851–7.PubMedCrossRef Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20(7):851–7.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference McCarthy EG, Finkel ML, Ruchlin HS. Second opinions on elective surgery. The Cornell/New York Hospital Study. Lancet. 1981;1(8234):1352–4.PubMedCrossRef McCarthy EG, Finkel ML, Ruchlin HS. Second opinions on elective surgery. The Cornell/New York Hospital Study. Lancet. 1981;1(8234):1352–4.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Thompson JN, Varley CK, McClellan J, et al. Second opinions improve ADHD prescribing in a Medicaid-insured community population. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;48(7):740–8.PubMedCrossRef Thompson JN, Varley CK, McClellan J, et al. Second opinions improve ADHD prescribing in a Medicaid-insured community population. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;48(7):740–8.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Moumjid N, Gafni A, Bremond A, Carrere MO. Seeking a second opinion: Do patients need a second opinion when practice guidelines exist? Health Policy. 2007;80(1):43–50.PubMedCrossRef Moumjid N, Gafni A, Bremond A, Carrere MO. Seeking a second opinion: Do patients need a second opinion when practice guidelines exist? Health Policy. 2007;80(1):43–50.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Axon A, Hassan M, Niv Y, Beglinger C, Rokkas T. Ethical and legal implications in seeking and providing a second medical opinion. Dig Dis. 2008;26(1):11–7.PubMedCrossRef Axon A, Hassan M, Niv Y, Beglinger C, Rokkas T. Ethical and legal implications in seeking and providing a second medical opinion. Dig Dis. 2008;26(1):11–7.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Sutherland LR, Verhoef MJ. Patients who seek a second opinion: Are they different from the typical referral? J Clin Gastroenterol. 1989;11(3):308–13.PubMedCrossRef Sutherland LR, Verhoef MJ. Patients who seek a second opinion: Are they different from the typical referral? J Clin Gastroenterol. 1989;11(3):308–13.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Elder NC, Jacobson CJ, Zink T, Hasse L. How experiencing preventable medical problems changed patients' interactions with primary health care. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(6):537–44.PubMedCrossRef Elder NC, Jacobson CJ, Zink T, Hasse L. How experiencing preventable medical problems changed patients' interactions with primary health care. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(6):537–44.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Goldman RE, Sullivan A, Back AL, Alexander SC, Matsuyama RK, Lee SJ. Patients' reflections on communication in the second-opinion hematology-oncology consultation. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(1):44–50.PubMedCrossRef Goldman RE, Sullivan A, Back AL, Alexander SC, Matsuyama RK, Lee SJ. Patients' reflections on communication in the second-opinion hematology-oncology consultation. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(1):44–50.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Oskay-Ozcelik G, Lehmacher W, Konsgen D, et al. Breast cancer patients' expectations in respect of the physician-patient relationship and treatment management results of a survey of 617 patients. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(3):479–84.PubMedCrossRef Oskay-Ozcelik G, Lehmacher W, Konsgen D, et al. Breast cancer patients' expectations in respect of the physician-patient relationship and treatment management results of a survey of 617 patients. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(3):479–84.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Sato T, Takeichi M, Hara T, Koizumi S. Second opinion behavior among Japanese primary care patients. Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49(444):546–50.PubMed Sato T, Takeichi M, Hara T, Koizumi S. Second opinion behavior among Japanese primary care patients. Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49(444):546–50.PubMed
28.
go back to reference van Dalen I, Groothoff J, Stewart R, Spreeuwenberg P, Groenewegen P, van Horn J. Motives for seeking a second opinion in orthopaedic surgery. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001;6(4):195–201.PubMedCrossRef van Dalen I, Groothoff J, Stewart R, Spreeuwenberg P, Groenewegen P, van Horn J. Motives for seeking a second opinion in orthopaedic surgery. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001;6(4):195–201.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Philip J, Gold M, Schwarz M, Komesaroff P. An exploration of the dynamics and influences upon second medical opinion consultations in cancer care. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2011;7(1):41–6.PubMedCrossRef Philip J, Gold M, Schwarz M, Komesaroff P. An exploration of the dynamics and influences upon second medical opinion consultations in cancer care. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2011;7(1):41–6.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference McCulloch CE, Searle SR. Generalized, linear, and mixed models. New York: J. Wiley; 2001:208–12. McCulloch CE, Searle SR. Generalized, linear, and mixed models. New York: J. Wiley; 2001:208–12.
31.
go back to reference Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979;6:65–70. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979;6:65–70.
32.
go back to reference Rutkow IM, Gittelsohn AM, Zuidema GD. Surgical decision making. the reliability of clinical judgment. Ann Surg. 1979;190(3):409–19.PubMedCrossRef Rutkow IM, Gittelsohn AM, Zuidema GD. Surgical decision making. the reliability of clinical judgment. Ann Surg. 1979;190(3):409–19.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Leape LL. Unnecessary surgery. Health Serv Res. 1989;24(3):351–407.PubMed Leape LL. Unnecessary surgery. Health Serv Res. 1989;24(3):351–407.PubMed
34.
go back to reference McCarthy EG, Finkel ML. Second consultant opinion for elective orthopedic surgery. Am J Public Health. 1981;71(11):1233–6.PubMedCrossRef McCarthy EG, Finkel ML. Second consultant opinion for elective orthopedic surgery. Am J Public Health. 1981;71(11):1233–6.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Danzon P. The frequency and severity of medical malpractice claims. J Law Econ. 1984;27(1):115–48.PubMedCrossRef Danzon P. The frequency and severity of medical malpractice claims. J Law Econ. 1984;27(1):115–48.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Asch D, Jedrziewski M, Christakis N. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(10):1129–36.PubMedCrossRef Asch D, Jedrziewski M, Christakis N. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(10):1129–36.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Cummings S, Savitz L, Konrad T. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res. 2001;35(6):1347–55.PubMed Cummings S, Savitz L, Konrad T. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res. 2001;35(6):1347–55.PubMed
39.
go back to reference Jepson C, Asch D, Hershey J, Ubel P. In a mailed physician survey, questionnaire length had a threshold effect on response rate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(1):103–5.PubMedCrossRef Jepson C, Asch D, Hershey J, Ubel P. In a mailed physician survey, questionnaire length had a threshold effect on response rate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(1):103–5.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Do First Opinions Affect Second Opinions?
Authors
Geva Vashitz, PhD
Joseph S. Pliskin, PhD
Yisrael Parmet, PhD
Yona Kosashvili, MD
Gal Ifergane, MD
Shlomo Wientroub, MD
Nadav Davidovitch, MD, PhD
Publication date
01-10-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 10/2012
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2056-y

Other articles of this Issue 10/2012

Journal of General Internal Medicine 10/2012 Go to the issue

Healing Arts: Materia Medica

A Birthday Wish

Healing Arts: Materia Medica

Brave Silence

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine