Dataset Information

A structured expert judgement elicitation approach: how can it inform sound intervention decision-making to support household food security?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine structured expert judgement (SEJ) elicitation as a method to provide robust, defensible data for three determinants of household food security (food cost, household disposable income and physical access) for quantifying a proof-of-concept integrating decision support system for food security.

Design

SEJ elicitation is a validated method for obtaining unavailable data, but its use in household food security in high-income countries is novel. Investigate Discuss Estimate Aggregate (IDEA) elicitation protocol was implemented, including quantitative and qualitative elements. Using specific questions related to three determinants, food security experts were encouraged to Investigate - estimate individual first-round responses to these questions, Discuss - with each other evidence on the reasoning and logic of their estimates, Estimate - second-round responses, following which these judgements were combined using mathematical Aggregation.

Setting

Victoria, Australia.

Participants

Five experts with a range of expertise in the area of household food insecurity participated in the SEJ elicitation process.

Results

The experts' ability to provide reliable estimates was tested and informed the aggregation of the collection of individual estimates into a single quantity of interest for use in decision support. The results of the quantitative elicitation show the impact of combinations of varying household income, food cost and physical access on household food security status and severity and is supported by the experts reasoning during elicitation.

Conclusion

This research provides insight to the application of SEJ where elicited data can inform and support intervention decision-making specific to household food security, especially where evidence is absent or of poor quality.

SUBMITTER: Kleve S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10195523 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A structured expert judgement elicitation approach: how can it inform sound intervention decision-making to support household food security?

Kleve Sue S Barons Martine J MJ

Public health nutrition 20210205 8

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine structured expert judgement (SEJ) elicitation as a method to provide robust, defensible data for three determinants of household food security (food cost, household disposable income and physical access) for quantifying a proof-of-concept integrating decision support system for food security.<h4>Design</h4>SEJ elicitation is a validated method for obtaining unavailable data, but its use in household food security in high-income countries is novel. Investigate Discuss ...[more]

PMID: 33541466

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile expert optometrists tend to rely on a deep understanding of the disease and intuitive pattern recognition, those with less experience may depend more on extensive data, comparisons, and external guidance. Understanding these variations is important for developing artificial intelligence (AI) systems that can effectively support optometrists with varying degrees of experience and minimize decision inconsistencies.ObjectiveThe main objective of this study is to identify and analyze the variations in diagnostic decision-making approaches between novice and expert optometrists. By understanding these variations, we aim to provide guidelines for the development of AI systems that can support optometrists with varying levels of expertise. These guidelines will assist in developing AI systems for glaucoma diagnosis, ultimately enhancing the diagnostic accuracy of optometrists and minimizing inconsistencies in their decisions.MethodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with 14 optometrists using within-subject design, including both novices and experts, focusing on their approaches to glaucoma diagnosis. The responses were coded and analyzed using a mixed method approach incorporating both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Statistical tests such as Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were used to find significance in intergroup variations. These findings were further supported by themes extracted through qualitative analysis, which helped to identify decision-making patterns and understand variations in their approaches.ResultsBoth groups showed lower concordance rates with clinical diagnosis, with experts showing almost double (7/35, 20%) concordance rates with limited data in comparison to novices (7/69, 10%), highlighting the impact of experience and data availability on clinical judgment; this rate increased to nearly 40% for both groups (experts: 5/12, 42% and novices: 8/21, 42%) when they had access to complete historical data of the patient. We also found statistically significant intergroup differences between the first visits and subsequent visits with a P value of less than .05 on the Mann-Whitney U test in many assessments. Furthermore, approaches to the exam assessment and decision differed significantly: experts emphasized comprehensive risk assessments and progression analysis, demonstrating cognitive efficiency and intuitive decision-making, while novices relied more on structured, analytical methods and external references. Additionally, significant variations in patient follow-up times were observed, with a P value of <.001 on the chi-square test, showing a stronger influence of experience on follow-up time decisions.ConclusionsThe study highlights significant variations in the decision-making process of novice and expert optometrists in glaucoma diagnosis, with experience playing a key role in accuracy, approach, and management. These findings demonstrate the critical need for AI systems tailored to varying levels of expertise. They also provide insights for the future design of AI systems aimed at enhancing the diagnostic accuracy of optometrists and consistency across different expertise levels, ultimately improving patient outcomes in optometric practice.

Project description:ObjectiveTo conceptualise the cognitive processes of early expert decision-making in urgent care.BackgroundExpert clinicians in the UK frequently determine suitable urgent care patient pathways via telephone triage. This strategy is promoted by policymakers but how it is performed, and its effectiveness has not been evaluated. Evaluation of early senior decision-making requires knowledge of decision-processes, influences, and goals. Previous research has focused on diagnostic decision-making and rarely studied clinicians in the field.MethodWe triangulated analytic autoethnography of early expert decision-making with focused ethnography of experts and trainee doctors performing the task. The study took place in a medium-sized Acute Medical Unit which provided internal medical emergency care for a mixed urban and rural population in the UK. A grounded theoretical model of expert decision-making was created via Gioia Methodology. Decision types were categorised to identify differences in solutions as well as decision processes.ResultsThe hallmarks of intuitive decision-making were found in most expert decisions. Experts made intuitive use of pattern-matching to extract key data from large volumes of information which triggered the spontaneous manifestation of solutions. Solutions were holistic and usually solitary. Upon manifestation solutions were consciously tested for viability with emotional affect playing a key role. Expert solutions were previously applied ones but were frequently entirely novel. Novel solution generation was not a feature of trainee decisions but moments of intuition were. Expert goals varied between optimal care for individual patients, system-wide efficiency, and equity of care. The decision environment had a large influence upon experts.ConclusionExpert clinicians employ intuitive decision-making supported by rational analysis in early urgent care decision-making. Expert solutions generated in this manner are pragmatic rather than optimal, context dependent, and seek to achieve goals which vary from moment-moment. Findings are crucial to inform research evaluating the effectiveness of early expert decision-making in urgent care as it is a high cost strategy. They also have implications for methodological approaches in future studies of expert clinical decision-making, developing artificial expert systems, and clinician training.

Dataset Information

A structured expert judgement elicitation approach: how can it inform sound intervention decision-making to support household food security?

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A structured expert judgement elicitation approach: how can it inform sound intervention decision-making to support household food security?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets