Debiasing and Educational Interventions in Medical Diagnosis: A Systematic Review

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
A. Tung, M. Melchiorre
{"title":"Debiasing and Educational Interventions in Medical Diagnosis: A Systematic Review","authors":"A. Tung, M. Melchiorre","doi":"10.1101/2022.09.12.22279750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The prevalence of cognitive bias and its contribution to diagnostic errors has been documented in recent research. Debiasing interventions or educational initiatives are key in reducing the effects and prevalence of cognitive biases, contributing to the prevention of diagnostic errors. The objectives of this review were to 1) characterize common debiasing strategies implemented to reduce diagnosis-related cognitive biases, 2) report the cognitive biases targeted, and 3) determine the effectiveness of these interventions on diagnostic accuracy. Methods: Searches were conducted on April 25, 2022, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, and PsycInfo. Studies were included if they presented a debiasing intervention that aimed to improve diagnostic accuracy. The Rayyan review software was used for screening. Quality assessments were conducted using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. Extraction, quality assessment and analysis were recorded in Excel. Results: Searches resulted in 2232 studies. 17 studies were included in the final analysis. Three major debiasing interventions were identified: tool use, education of biases, and education of debiasing strategies. All intervention types reported mixed results. Common biases targeted include confirmation, availability, and search satisfying bias. Conclusion: While all three major debiasing interventions identified demonstrate some effectiveness in improving diagnostic accuracy, included studies reported mixed results when implemented. Furthermore, no studies examined decision-making in a clinical setting, and no studies reported long-term follow-up. Future research should look to identify why some interventions demonstrate low effectiveness, the conditions which enable high effectiveness, and effectiveness in environments beyond vignettes and among attending physicians.","PeriodicalId":41298,"journal":{"name":"University of Toronto Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Toronto Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.12.22279750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of cognitive bias and its contribution to diagnostic errors has been documented in recent research. Debiasing interventions or educational initiatives are key in reducing the effects and prevalence of cognitive biases, contributing to the prevention of diagnostic errors. The objectives of this review were to 1) characterize common debiasing strategies implemented to reduce diagnosis-related cognitive biases, 2) report the cognitive biases targeted, and 3) determine the effectiveness of these interventions on diagnostic accuracy. Methods: Searches were conducted on April 25, 2022, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, and PsycInfo. Studies were included if they presented a debiasing intervention that aimed to improve diagnostic accuracy. The Rayyan review software was used for screening. Quality assessments were conducted using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. Extraction, quality assessment and analysis were recorded in Excel. Results: Searches resulted in 2232 studies. 17 studies were included in the final analysis. Three major debiasing interventions were identified: tool use, education of biases, and education of debiasing strategies. All intervention types reported mixed results. Common biases targeted include confirmation, availability, and search satisfying bias. Conclusion: While all three major debiasing interventions identified demonstrate some effectiveness in improving diagnostic accuracy, included studies reported mixed results when implemented. Furthermore, no studies examined decision-making in a clinical setting, and no studies reported long-term follow-up. Future research should look to identify why some interventions demonstrate low effectiveness, the conditions which enable high effectiveness, and effectiveness in environments beyond vignettes and among attending physicians.
医学诊断中的消除偏见和教育干预:系统综述
背景:认知偏差的普遍性及其对诊断错误的贡献已在最近的研究中得到证实。消除偏见的干预措施或教育举措是减少认知偏见的影响和流行的关键,有助于预防诊断错误。本综述的目的是:1)描述为减少诊断相关认知偏差而实施的常见去偏策略;2)报告所针对的认知偏差;3)确定这些干预措施对诊断准确性的有效性。方法:于2022年4月25日在MEDLINE、EMBASE、Healthstar和PsycInfo中进行检索。如果研究提出了旨在提高诊断准确性的去偏干预措施,则纳入研究。使用Rayyan审查软件进行筛选。使用JBI关键评估工具进行质量评估。提取、质量评价和分析记录在Excel中。结果:检索结果为2232项研究。最终分析纳入了17项研究。确定了三种主要的消除偏见干预措施:工具使用、偏见教育和消除偏见策略教育。所有干预类型报告的结果好坏参半。常见的偏见包括确认、可用性和搜索满意偏见。结论:虽然确定的所有三种主要的去偏干预措施在提高诊断准确性方面都表现出一定的有效性,但纳入的研究报告了实施后的混合结果。此外,没有研究检查临床环境中的决策,也没有研究报告长期随访。未来的研究应该着眼于确定为什么一些干预措施表现出低有效性,使高有效性的条件,以及在小插曲之外的环境和主治医生之间的有效性。
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
University of Toronto Medical Journal
University of Toronto Medical Journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信