How Human Decision-making Biases Influence Health Outcomes in Patient Care

R. Sibbel, A. Huber
{"title":"How Human Decision-making Biases Influence Health Outcomes in Patient Care","authors":"R. Sibbel, A. Huber","doi":"10.15421/192106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Medical treatments and medical decision making are mostly human based and therefore in risk of being influenced by cognitive biases. The potential impact could lead to bad medical outcome, unnecessary harm or even death. The aim of this comprehensive literature study is to analyse the evidence whether healthcare professionals are biased, which biases are most relevant in medicine and how these biases may be reduced. \nApproach/Findings: The results of the comprehensive literature based meta-analysis confirm on the one hand that several biases are relevant in the medical decision and treatment process. On the other hand, the study shows that the empirical evidence on the impact of cognitive biases on clinical outcome is scarce for most biases and that further research is necessary in this field. \nValue/Practical Implications: Nevertheless, it is important to determine the extent to which biases in healthcare professionals translate into negative clinical outcomes such as misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis, or mistreatment. Only this way, the importance of incorporating debiasing strategies into the clinical setting, and which biases to focus on, can be properly assessed. \nResearch Limitations/Future Research: Though recent literature puts great emphasis on cognitive debiasing strategies, there are still very few approaches that have proven to be efficient. Due to the increasing degree of specialization in medicine, the relevance of the different biases varies. \nPaper type: Theoretical.","PeriodicalId":32724,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Management Issues","volume":"29 1","pages":"64-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Management Issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15421/192106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Medical treatments and medical decision making are mostly human based and therefore in risk of being influenced by cognitive biases. The potential impact could lead to bad medical outcome, unnecessary harm or even death. The aim of this comprehensive literature study is to analyse the evidence whether healthcare professionals are biased, which biases are most relevant in medicine and how these biases may be reduced. Approach/Findings: The results of the comprehensive literature based meta-analysis confirm on the one hand that several biases are relevant in the medical decision and treatment process. On the other hand, the study shows that the empirical evidence on the impact of cognitive biases on clinical outcome is scarce for most biases and that further research is necessary in this field. Value/Practical Implications: Nevertheless, it is important to determine the extent to which biases in healthcare professionals translate into negative clinical outcomes such as misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis, or mistreatment. Only this way, the importance of incorporating debiasing strategies into the clinical setting, and which biases to focus on, can be properly assessed. Research Limitations/Future Research: Though recent literature puts great emphasis on cognitive debiasing strategies, there are still very few approaches that have proven to be efficient. Due to the increasing degree of specialization in medicine, the relevance of the different biases varies. Paper type: Theoretical.
人类决策偏差如何影响患者护理的健康结果
目的:医疗和医疗决策大多以人为基础,因此有受到认知偏见影响的风险。潜在的影响可能导致糟糕的医疗结果、不必要的伤害甚至死亡。这项综合文献研究的目的是分析医疗保健专业人员是否有偏见的证据,哪些偏见在医学中最相关,以及如何减少这些偏见。方法/发现:基于文献的综合荟萃分析的结果一方面证实了医疗决策和治疗过程中的几个偏见是相关的。另一方面,该研究表明,对于大多数偏见来说,关于认知偏见对临床结果影响的经验证据很少,有必要在该领域进行进一步研究。价值/实际意义:然而,重要的是要确定医疗保健专业人员的偏见在多大程度上转化为负面的临床结果,如误诊、延迟诊断或虐待。只有这样,才能正确评估将去偏倚策略纳入临床环境的重要性,以及关注哪些偏倚。研究局限性/未来研究:尽管最近的文献非常强调认知去偏策略,但仍然很少有方法被证明是有效的。由于医学专业化程度的提高,不同偏见的相关性也有所不同。纸张类型:理论型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信