偏差在严重精神疾病患者及并发症患者临床决策中的作用:范围界定综述》(The Role of Bias in Clinical Decision-Making of People with Serious Mental Illness and Medical Co-morbidities: a Scoping Review)。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kathleen A Crapanzano, Stephen Deweese, Diem Pham, Thanh Le, Rebecca Hammarlund
{"title":"偏差在严重精神疾病患者及并发症患者临床决策中的作用:范围界定综述》(The Role of Bias in Clinical Decision-Making of People with Serious Mental Illness and Medical Co-morbidities: a Scoping Review)。","authors":"Kathleen A Crapanzano, Stephen Deweese, Diem Pham, Thanh Le, Rebecca Hammarlund","doi":"10.1007/s11414-022-09829-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this review was to examine the evidence for the impact of explicit and implicit biases against mental illness on the clinical decision-making of primary care physicians, medical students, and nurses when they are providing care to individuals with serious mental illness for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EBSCO host, and PsychINFO. A total of 18 studies published between 1996 and 2020 were reviewed and summarized. The studies were divided into two groups-studies that used a simulation or vignette methodology and those with a qualitative approach (interviews and focus groups). Of the simulation/vignette studies that allowed participants to report what they would have done in various clinical scenarios, there were roughly equal numbers of neutral or negative clinical decisions that represented 80% of the relevant behavioral results. Only 21% of the findings demonstrated a clinical decision that was favorable towards people with mental illness. Of the qualitative studies, all of the studies reported behaviors (either self-reported or observed) that were likely to be biased against people with mental illness, while 3 of the studies reported mixed results. Healthcare provider bias against individuals with mental illness does exist and impacts clinical decisions negatively. Much more empirical work needs to be done to determine the full extent and impact of the problem, including how these decisions affect the lives of individuals with mental illness.</p>","PeriodicalId":49040,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10016362/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Bias in Clinical Decision-Making of People with Serious Mental Illness and Medical Co-morbidities: a Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Kathleen A Crapanzano, Stephen Deweese, Diem Pham, Thanh Le, Rebecca Hammarlund\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11414-022-09829-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this review was to examine the evidence for the impact of explicit and implicit biases against mental illness on the clinical decision-making of primary care physicians, medical students, and nurses when they are providing care to individuals with serious mental illness for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EBSCO host, and PsychINFO. A total of 18 studies published between 1996 and 2020 were reviewed and summarized. The studies were divided into two groups-studies that used a simulation or vignette methodology and those with a qualitative approach (interviews and focus groups). Of the simulation/vignette studies that allowed participants to report what they would have done in various clinical scenarios, there were roughly equal numbers of neutral or negative clinical decisions that represented 80% of the relevant behavioral results. Only 21% of the findings demonstrated a clinical decision that was favorable towards people with mental illness. Of the qualitative studies, all of the studies reported behaviors (either self-reported or observed) that were likely to be biased against people with mental illness, while 3 of the studies reported mixed results. Healthcare provider bias against individuals with mental illness does exist and impacts clinical decisions negatively. Much more empirical work needs to be done to determine the full extent and impact of the problem, including how these decisions affect the lives of individuals with mental illness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49040,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10016362/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-022-09829-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-022-09829-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本综述旨在研究证据表明,当初级保健医生、医科学生和护士为患有心血管疾病、糖尿病和癌症的严重精神疾病患者提供治疗时,针对精神疾病的显性和隐性偏见对其临床决策的影响。研究是通过检索 MEDLINE、EBSCO host 和 PsychINFO 确定的。共对 1996 年至 2020 年间发表的 18 项研究进行了回顾和总结。这些研究被分为两组--采用模拟或小故事方法的研究和采用定性方法(访谈和焦点小组)的研究。在模拟/小故事研究中,参与者可以报告他们在各种临床场景中会做什么,其中中性或负面临床决策的数量大致相当,占相关行为结果的 80%。只有 21% 的研究结果显示了对精神病患者有利的临床决定。在定性研究中,所有的研究都报告了可能对精神病患者存在偏见的行为(无论是自我报告的还是观察到的),而有 3 项研究报告的结果不一。医疗服务提供者对精神疾病患者的偏见确实存在,并对临床决策产生了负面影响。我们还需要做更多的实证工作来确定这个问题的严重程度和影响,包括这些决定是如何影响 精神疾病患者的生活的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Role of Bias in Clinical Decision-Making of People with Serious Mental Illness and Medical Co-morbidities: a Scoping Review.

The Role of Bias in Clinical Decision-Making of People with Serious Mental Illness and Medical Co-morbidities: a Scoping Review.

The aim of this review was to examine the evidence for the impact of explicit and implicit biases against mental illness on the clinical decision-making of primary care physicians, medical students, and nurses when they are providing care to individuals with serious mental illness for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EBSCO host, and PsychINFO. A total of 18 studies published between 1996 and 2020 were reviewed and summarized. The studies were divided into two groups-studies that used a simulation or vignette methodology and those with a qualitative approach (interviews and focus groups). Of the simulation/vignette studies that allowed participants to report what they would have done in various clinical scenarios, there were roughly equal numbers of neutral or negative clinical decisions that represented 80% of the relevant behavioral results. Only 21% of the findings demonstrated a clinical decision that was favorable towards people with mental illness. Of the qualitative studies, all of the studies reported behaviors (either self-reported or observed) that were likely to be biased against people with mental illness, while 3 of the studies reported mixed results. Healthcare provider bias against individuals with mental illness does exist and impacts clinical decisions negatively. Much more empirical work needs to be done to determine the full extent and impact of the problem, including how these decisions affect the lives of individuals with mental illness.

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
Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
51
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal examines the organization, financing, delivery and outcomes of behavioral health services (i.e., alcohol, drug abuse, and mental disorders), providing practical and empirical contributions to and explaining the implications for the broader behavioral health field. Each issue includes an overview of contemporary concerns and recent developments in behavioral health policy and management through research articles, policy perspectives, commentaries, brief reports, and book reviews. This journal is the official publication of the National Council for Behavioral Health.
×
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