{"title":"引发替代性诊断假设的反思性语言化策略","authors":"Sho Isoda, Taro Shimizu, Tadayuki Hashimoto, Fumio Shimada, Miwa Misawa, 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, Taro Shimizu, Tadayuki Hashimoto, Fumio Shimada, Miwa Misawa, 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}
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.
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.