引发替代性诊断假设的反思性语言化策略

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sho Isoda, Taro Shimizu, Tadayuki Hashimoto, Fumio Shimada, Miwa Misawa, Tomio Suzuki
{"title":"引发替代性诊断假设的反思性语言化策略","authors":"Sho Isoda,&nbsp;Taro Shimizu,&nbsp;Tadayuki Hashimoto,&nbsp;Fumio Shimada,&nbsp;Miwa Misawa,&nbsp;Tomio Suzuki","doi":"10.1111/jep.70267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>Physicians sometimes encounter various types of gut feelings (GFs) during clinical diagnosis. The type of GF addressed in this paper refers to the intuitive sense that the generated hypothesis might be incorrect. An appropriate diagnosis cannot be obtained unless these GFs are articulated and inventive solutions are devised. Thus, the method of articulating GFs is critical.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The current study proposes reflective verbalization (RV) to help healthcare professionals capitalize on their GF. In cognitive psychology, RV is the process of verbalizing one's thoughts and feelings through metacognition, to promote deeper understanding and insight problem-solving. When applied to clinical reasoning, RV can help doctors verbalize their GFs, refining their diagnostic hypotheses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>To address GFs systematically using RV, we introduce the DATES approach, comprising five perspectives: Degree, Abandoned, Time course, Excess, and Shortage. Each perspective prompts physicians to compare their patient's information against typical illness scripts, ensuring no detail is omitted or overlooked.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results and Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The tool also aids physicians in considering possible differential diagnoses for one or more of these elements. This guiding tool may aid physicians in overcoming biases, including confirmation and anchoring biases, thus improving diagnostic accuracy. This tool is useful for healthcare professionals who wish to improve their clinical reasoning and decision-making abilities, particularly when they encounter inexplicable contradictions in their diagnostic hypotheses.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70267","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Reflective Verbalization Strategy to Trigger Alternative Diagnostic Hypotheses\",\"authors\":\"Sho Isoda,&nbsp;Taro Shimizu,&nbsp;Tadayuki Hashimoto,&nbsp;Fumio Shimada,&nbsp;Miwa Misawa,&nbsp;Tomio Suzuki\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.70267\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Rationale</h3>\\n \\n <p>Physicians sometimes encounter various types of gut feelings (GFs) during clinical diagnosis. The type of GF addressed in this paper refers to the intuitive sense that the generated hypothesis might be incorrect. An appropriate diagnosis cannot be obtained unless these GFs are articulated and inventive solutions are devised. Thus, the method of articulating GFs is critical.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>The current study proposes reflective verbalization (RV) to help healthcare professionals capitalize on their GF. In cognitive psychology, RV is the process of verbalizing one's thoughts and feelings through metacognition, to promote deeper understanding and insight problem-solving. When applied to clinical reasoning, RV can help doctors verbalize their GFs, refining their diagnostic hypotheses.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>To address GFs systematically using RV, we introduce the DATES approach, comprising five perspectives: Degree, Abandoned, Time course, Excess, and Shortage. Each perspective prompts physicians to compare their patient's information against typical illness scripts, ensuring no detail is omitted or overlooked.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results and Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The tool also aids physicians in considering possible differential diagnoses for one or more of these elements. This guiding tool may aid physicians in overcoming biases, including confirmation and anchoring biases, thus improving diagnostic accuracy. This tool is useful for healthcare professionals who wish to improve their clinical reasoning and decision-making abilities, particularly when they encounter inexplicable contradictions in their diagnostic hypotheses.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"31 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70267\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70267\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70267","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医生在临床诊断过程中有时会遇到各种类型的肠道感觉(GFs)。本文讨论的GF类型是指直觉上产生的假设可能是不正确的。除非明确说明这些特征并设计出创造性的解决方案,否则无法获得适当的诊断。因此,表达GFs的方法至关重要。目的和目的目前的研究提出反思性语言化(RV)来帮助医疗保健专业人员利用他们的GF。在认知心理学中,RV是通过元认知将自己的思想和感受用语言表达出来,以促进更深层次的理解和洞察力解决问题的过程。当应用于临床推理时,RV可以帮助医生用语言表达他们的GFs,完善他们的诊断假设。方法为了系统地利用RV分析GFs,我们引入了date方法,包括五个方面:程度、放弃、时间进程、过剩和短缺。每一种观点都促使医生将病人的信息与典型的疾病处方进行比较,确保没有遗漏或忽视任何细节。结果和结论该工具还有助于医生考虑对这些因素中的一个或多个进行可能的鉴别诊断。这种指导工具可以帮助医生克服偏见,包括确认和锚定偏见,从而提高诊断的准确性。该工具对于希望提高临床推理和决策能力的医疗保健专业人员非常有用,特别是当他们在诊断假设中遇到无法解释的矛盾时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Reflective Verbalization Strategy to Trigger Alternative Diagnostic Hypotheses

A Reflective Verbalization Strategy to Trigger Alternative Diagnostic Hypotheses

Rationale

Physicians sometimes encounter various types of gut feelings (GFs) during clinical diagnosis. The type of GF addressed in this paper refers to the intuitive sense that the generated hypothesis might be incorrect. An appropriate diagnosis cannot be obtained unless these GFs are articulated and inventive solutions are devised. Thus, the method of articulating GFs is critical.

Aims and Objectives

The current study proposes reflective verbalization (RV) to help healthcare professionals capitalize on their GF. In cognitive psychology, RV is the process of verbalizing one's thoughts and feelings through metacognition, to promote deeper understanding and insight problem-solving. When applied to clinical reasoning, RV can help doctors verbalize their GFs, refining their diagnostic hypotheses.

Method

To address GFs systematically using RV, we introduce the DATES approach, comprising five perspectives: Degree, Abandoned, Time course, Excess, and Shortage. Each perspective prompts physicians to compare their patient's information against typical illness scripts, ensuring no detail is omitted or overlooked.

Results and Conclusion

The tool also aids physicians in considering possible differential diagnoses for one or more of these elements. This guiding tool may aid physicians in overcoming biases, including confirmation and anchoring biases, thus improving diagnostic accuracy. This tool is useful for healthcare professionals who wish to improve their clinical reasoning and decision-making abilities, particularly when they encounter inexplicable contradictions in their diagnostic hypotheses.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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