Back

Delay discounting and low-value care decision-making by primary care clinicians in a survey-based vignette experiment

Epling, J. W.; King, M. J.; Rockwell, M.; Tegge, A. N.; Hester, C. M.; Clay, T. L.; Callen, E. F.; Turner, J. K.; Stein, J.

2026-07-13 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.07.09.26357617 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction: Primary care clinicians (PCC) commonly make decisions in the context of time delay and uncertainty. Delay discounting (DD) and probability discounting (PD) are cognitive biases related to delay and uncertainty that are minimally explored in PCC. We assessed DD and PD in PCC and evaluated their association with low-value care (LVC) decision-making. Methods: We administered a survey to PCC in a Southeastern U.S health system and within the American Academy of Family Physicians networks. The survey comprised standardized psychometric assessments of DD and PD and four LVC clinical vignettes. Outcomes included DD and PD discounting rates for two monetary rewards ($100 and $10,000) and ratings of LVC likelihood (0-100). We used regression analysis with model selection to evaluate the relationship between variables. Results: 225 PCC (89% physicians, 11% advanced practice providers) participated. Heterogeneity in DD and PD rates was observed. For the $10,000 reward, ln k(DD)= -6.80, IQR:-7.60--6.10) and ln h(PD)= 1.75, IQR:1.75-2.36). The reward amount impacted DD and PD in opposing directions (i.e., lower DD/higher PD rates for $10,000 vs. $100). LVC likelihood was highest for low-value antibiotics and lowest for low-value cervical cancer screening (median 20, IQR:10-40 and 0, IQR:0-10, respectively). Model selection revealed demographic associations with LVC likelihood, but no association with DD or PD. Conclusions: Consistent with effects previously reported in non-clinicians, PCC exhibited a range of DD and PD, which ranged by reward magnitude. Neither DD nor PD predicted vignette-based LVC likelihood. Further research should investigate actual clinical practice patterns and other LVC scenarios.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.5%
2
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.9%
3
Medical Decision Making
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
4
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.3%
5
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.5%
6
Journal of General Internal Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
8
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
9
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
10
Clinical Trials
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
11
British Journal of General Practice
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
12
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
Health Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
14
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
15
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
16
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
17
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
18
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
19
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
20
Biometrics
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
21
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
22
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
47 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.1%
23
Health Expectations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
24
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 68%
1.1%
25
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
26
European Journal of Human Genetics
58 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
27
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.8%
28
Genetics in Medicine
78 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
29
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
30
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%