高风险事件中的决策:系统文献综述。

IF 2.2 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL
Carrie Reale, Megan E Salwei, Laura G Militello, Matthew B Weinger, Amanda Burden, Christen Sushereba, Laurence C Torsher, Michael H Andreae, David M Gaba, William R McIvor, Arna Banerjee, Jason Slagle, Shilo Anders
{"title":"高风险事件中的决策:系统文献综述。","authors":"Carrie Reale, Megan E Salwei, Laura G Militello, Matthew B Weinger, Amanda Burden, Christen Sushereba, Laurence C Torsher, Michael H Andreae, David M Gaba, William R McIvor, Arna Banerjee, Jason Slagle, Shilo Anders","doi":"10.1177/15553434221147415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Effective decision-making in crisis events is challenging due to time pressure, uncertainty, and dynamic decisional environments. We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed and PsycINFO, identifying 32 empiric research papers that examine how trained professionals make naturalistic decisions under pressure. We used structured qualitative analysis methods to extract key themes. The studies explored different aspects of decision-making across multiple domains. The majority (19) focused on healthcare; military, fire and rescue, oil installation, and aviation domains were also represented. We found appreciable variability in research focus, methodology, and decision-making descriptions. We identified five main themes: (1) decision-making strategy, (2) time pressure, (3) stress, (4) uncertainty, and (5) errors. Recognition-primed decision-making (RPD) strategies were reported in all studies that analyzed this aspect. Analytical strategies were also prominent, appearing more frequently in contexts with less time pressure and explicit training to generate multiple explanations. Practitioner experience, time pressure, stress, and uncertainty were major influencing factors. Professionals must adapt to the time available, types of uncertainty, and individual skills when making decisions in high-risk situations. Improved understanding of these decisional factors can inform evidence-based enhancements to training, technology, and process design.</p>","PeriodicalId":46342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10564111/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decision-Making During High-Risk Events: A Systematic Literature Review.\",\"authors\":\"Carrie Reale, Megan E Salwei, Laura G Militello, Matthew B Weinger, Amanda Burden, Christen Sushereba, Laurence C Torsher, Michael H Andreae, David M Gaba, William R McIvor, Arna Banerjee, Jason Slagle, Shilo Anders\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15553434221147415\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Effective decision-making in crisis events is challenging due to time pressure, uncertainty, and dynamic decisional environments. We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed and PsycINFO, identifying 32 empiric research papers that examine how trained professionals make naturalistic decisions under pressure. We used structured qualitative analysis methods to extract key themes. The studies explored different aspects of decision-making across multiple domains. The majority (19) focused on healthcare; military, fire and rescue, oil installation, and aviation domains were also represented. We found appreciable variability in research focus, methodology, and decision-making descriptions. We identified five main themes: (1) decision-making strategy, (2) time pressure, (3) stress, (4) uncertainty, and (5) errors. Recognition-primed decision-making (RPD) strategies were reported in all studies that analyzed this aspect. Analytical strategies were also prominent, appearing more frequently in contexts with less time pressure and explicit training to generate multiple explanations. Practitioner experience, time pressure, stress, and uncertainty were major influencing factors. Professionals must adapt to the time available, types of uncertainty, and individual skills when making decisions in high-risk situations. Improved understanding of these decisional factors can inform evidence-based enhancements to training, technology, and process design.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46342,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10564111/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434221147415\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434221147415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于时间压力、不确定性和动态决策环境,危机事件中的有效决策具有挑战性。我们在PubMed和PsycINFO上进行了系统的文献综述,确定了32篇实证研究论文,这些论文考察了受过训练的专业人员如何在压力下做出自然主义决策。我们使用结构化的定性分析方法来提取关键主题。这些研究探讨了多个领域决策的不同方面。大多数人(19人)专注于医疗保健;军事、消防和救援、石油设施和航空领域也有代表。我们发现,在研究重点、方法和决策描述方面存在明显的可变性。我们确定了五个主要主题:(1)决策策略,(2)时间压力,(3)压力,(4)不确定性和(5)错误。在所有分析这一方面的研究中都报道了识别引导决策(RPD)策略。分析策略也很突出,在时间压力较小、训练明确的情况下更频繁地出现,以产生多种解释。从业者经验、时间压力、压力和不确定性是主要影响因素。专业人员在高风险情况下做出决策时,必须适应可用的时间、不确定性类型和个人技能。更好地理解这些决策因素可以为培训、技术和流程设计的循证增强提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decision-Making During High-Risk Events: A Systematic Literature Review.

Effective decision-making in crisis events is challenging due to time pressure, uncertainty, and dynamic decisional environments. We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed and PsycINFO, identifying 32 empiric research papers that examine how trained professionals make naturalistic decisions under pressure. We used structured qualitative analysis methods to extract key themes. The studies explored different aspects of decision-making across multiple domains. The majority (19) focused on healthcare; military, fire and rescue, oil installation, and aviation domains were also represented. We found appreciable variability in research focus, methodology, and decision-making descriptions. We identified five main themes: (1) decision-making strategy, (2) time pressure, (3) stress, (4) uncertainty, and (5) errors. Recognition-primed decision-making (RPD) strategies were reported in all studies that analyzed this aspect. Analytical strategies were also prominent, appearing more frequently in contexts with less time pressure and explicit training to generate multiple explanations. Practitioner experience, time pressure, stress, and uncertainty were major influencing factors. Professionals must adapt to the time available, types of uncertainty, and individual skills when making decisions in high-risk situations. Improved understanding of these decisional factors can inform evidence-based enhancements to training, technology, and process design.

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
4.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
×
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