Background. Novice medical decision modelers are prone to errors. The purpose of this article is to describe the common errors committed by decision modeling students and the changes made to a structured decision modeling project course in response. Curriculum. The decision modeling curriculum includes month-long segments in decision analysis, cost-effectiveness analyses, and a project course. In the project course, students solve a decision problem with prespecified assumptions and input variable values, with the expectation that all reach the same answer. At first, students worked in groups of 2 or 3 but more recently work individually; over time, there have been other changes in the course. Originally, the only assignment was an abstract and 10-minute presentation describing their solution, but now periodic homework monitors progress. Outcomes. Students' results frequently differed significantly from the expected answers. Errors were common in sensitivity analyses and model construction, among other areas. Defensible differences in structural programming decisions were rare. More recently, result ranges have narrowed as stepwise homework ensures progress and areas prone to error are emphasized. Student communication is timelier, facilitated by homeworkrelated questions. Individual, rather than group, work avoids potential problems with weaker students being carried by the more advanced. Student satisfaction has increased, with more beginning their own projects afterward. Conclusion. Solving a common decision problem is an efficient teaching tool. Closer supervision leads to increased satisfaction and decreased frustration, facilitated by a more structured approach and the anticipation of common errors.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis registry. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cearegistry
2.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
3.
Sonnenberg FA, Roberts MS, Tsevat J, Wong JB, Barry M, Kent DL. Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models. Med Care. 1994;32(7 Suppl):JS52–JS64.
4.
Roberts MS, Sonnenberg FA. Decision modeling techniques. In: Chapman GB, Sonnenberg FA, eds. Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
5.
Smith KJ, Roberts MS. Antiviral therapies for herpes zoster infections: are they economically justifiable?Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18:95–104.
6.
Krahn MD, Naglie G, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. Primer on medical decision analysis: part 4—analyzing the model and interpreting the results. Med Decis Making. 1997; 17:142–151.
7.
Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:322–338.
8.
Fryback DG, Lawrence WF Jr. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem with defining quality-of-life adjustments. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:276–284.
9.
Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, Redelmeier DA, Naimark D.Primer on medical decision analysis: part 2—building a tree. Med Decis Making. 1997;171:126-135.
10.
Miller DK, Homan SM. Determining transition probabilities: confusion and suggestions. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:52–58.
11.
Naimark D, Krahn MD, Naglie G, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. Primer on medical decision analysis: part 5—working with Markov processes. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:152–159.
12.
Briggs AH, Ades AE, Price MJ. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for decision trees with multiple branches: use of the Dirichlet distribution in a Bayesian framework. Med Decis Making. 2003; 23:341–350.
