• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Can cognitive biases during consumer health information searches be reduced to improve decision making?消费者健康信息搜索过程中的认知偏差能否减少以改善决策?
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jan-Feb;16(1):54-65. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2557. Epub 2008 Oct 24.
2
Do people experience cognitive biases while searching for information?人们在搜索信息时会经历认知偏差吗?
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Sep-Oct;14(5):599-608. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2411. Epub 2007 Jun 28.
3
Impact of web searching and social feedback on consumer decision making: a prospective online experiment.网络搜索和社交反馈对消费者决策的影响:一项前瞻性在线实验
J Med Internet Res. 2008 Jan 22;10(1):e2. doi: 10.2196/jmir.963.
4
Evaluation of a novel Conjunctive Exploratory Navigation Interface for consumer health information: a crowdsourced comparative study.一种用于消费者健康信息的新型联合探索性导航界面的评估:一项众包比较研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Feb 10;16(2):e45. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3111.
5
Clinical decision velocity is increased when meta-search filters enhance an evidence retrieval system.当元搜索过滤器增强证据检索系统时,临床决策速度会提高。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Sep-Oct;15(5):638-46. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2765. Epub 2008 Jun 25.
6
The influence of crowds on consumer health decisions: an online prospective study.群体对消费者健康决策的影响:一项在线前瞻性研究。
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(Pt 1):33-7.
7
Is relevance relevant? User relevance ratings may not predict the impact of Internet search on decision outcomes.相关性是否具有相关性?用户相关性评级可能无法预测互联网搜索对决策结果的影响。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Jul-Aug;15(4):542-5. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2663. Epub 2008 Apr 24.
8
How do clinicians search for and access biomedical literature to answer clinical questions?
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 1):152-6.
9
Manipulating Google's Knowledge Graph Box to Counter Biased Information Processing During an Online Search on Vaccination: Application of a Technological Debiasing Strategy.在疫苗接种在线搜索过程中操纵谷歌知识图谱框以对抗信息处理偏差:一种技术去偏策略的应用
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jun 2;18(6):e137. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5430.
10
Search engines, cognitive biases and the man-computer interaction: a theoretical framework for empirical researches about cognitive biases in online search on health-related topics.搜索引擎、认知偏差和人机交互:关于健康相关主题在线搜索中认知偏差的实证研究的理论框架。
Med Health Care Philos. 2020 Jun;23(2):237-246. doi: 10.1007/s11019-020-09940-9.

引用本文的文献

1
Generative artificial intelligence-mediated confirmation bias in health information seeking.生成式人工智能介导的健康信息搜索中的确认偏差。
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2025 Aug;1550(1):23-36. doi: 10.1111/nyas.15413. Epub 2025 Jul 27.
2
Debiasing Judgements Using a Distributed Cognition Approach: A Scoping Review of Technological Strategies.使用分布式认知方法消除判断偏差:技术策略的范围综述
Hum Factors. 2025 Jun;67(6):525-545. doi: 10.1177/00187208241292897. Epub 2024 Oct 26.
3
Representativeness and face-ism: Gender bias in image search.代表性与面部主义:图像搜索中的性别偏见。
New Media Soc. 2024 Jun;26(6):3541-3567. doi: 10.1177/14614448221100699. Epub 2022 Jun 19.
4
Can the Standard Configuration of a Cardiac Monitor Lead to Medical Errors under a Stress Induction?在应激诱导下,标准配置的心脏监护导联会导致医疗差错吗?
Sensors (Basel). 2022 May 6;22(9):3536. doi: 10.3390/s22093536.
5
Family informatics.家庭信息学。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022 Jun 14;29(7):1310-1315. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac049.
6
Can "Googling" correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search.上网搜索能纠正错误信念吗?在线搜索的认知和情感后果。
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 22;16(9):e0256575. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256575. eCollection 2021.
7
HealthRecSys: A semantic content-based recommender system to complement health videos.HealthRecSys:一种基于语义内容的推荐系统,用于补充健康视频。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 May 15;17(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0431-7.
8
The Unintended Consequences of Health Information Technology Revisited.再谈健康信息技术的意外后果。
Yearb Med Inform. 2016 Nov 10(1):163-169. doi: 10.15265/IY-2016-014.
9
Does it matter whether physicians' recommendations are given early or late in the decision-making process? An experimental study among patients with schizophrenia.医生的建议在决策过程中给出的早晚有关系吗?一项针对精神分裂症患者的实验研究。
BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 16;6(9):e011282. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011282.
10
Manipulating Google's Knowledge Graph Box to Counter Biased Information Processing During an Online Search on Vaccination: Application of a Technological Debiasing Strategy.在疫苗接种在线搜索过程中操纵谷歌知识图谱框以对抗信息处理偏差:一种技术去偏策略的应用
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jun 2;18(6):e137. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5430.

本文引用的文献

1
Clinical decision velocity is increased when meta-search filters enhance an evidence retrieval system.当元搜索过滤器增强证据检索系统时,临床决策速度会提高。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Sep-Oct;15(5):638-46. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2765. Epub 2008 Jun 25.
2
Is relevance relevant? User relevance ratings may not predict the impact of Internet search on decision outcomes.相关性是否具有相关性?用户相关性评级可能无法预测互联网搜索对决策结果的影响。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Jul-Aug;15(4):542-5. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2663. Epub 2008 Apr 24.
3
The role of experience in decisions from description.经验在基于描述的决策中的作用。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Dec;14(6):1133-9. doi: 10.3758/bf03193102.
4
How do clinicians search for and access biomedical literature to answer clinical questions?
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 1):152-6.
5
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.《不确定性下的判断:启发式与偏差》
Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
6
Do people experience cognitive biases while searching for information?人们在搜索信息时会经历认知偏差吗?
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Sep-Oct;14(5):599-608. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2411. Epub 2007 Jun 28.
7
The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients.无关锚定对医生和患者判断及选择的影响。
Med Decis Making. 2007 Mar-Apr;27(2):203-11. doi: 10.1177/0272989X06298595.
8
Architecture for knowledge-based and federated search of online clinical evidence.基于知识和联合搜索在线临床证据的架构。
J Med Internet Res. 2005 Oct 24;7(5):e52. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.5.e52.
9
Do physicians know when their diagnoses are correct? Implications for decision support and error reduction.医生们知道他们的诊断何时是正确的吗?对决策支持和减少错误的启示。
J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Apr;20(4):334-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.30145.x.
10
The impact of an online evidence system on confidence in decision making in a controlled setting.在线证据系统对可控环境下决策信心的影响。
Med Decis Making. 2005 Mar-Apr;25(2):178-85. doi: 10.1177/0272989X05275155.

消费者健康信息搜索过程中的认知偏差能否减少以改善决策?

Can cognitive biases during consumer health information searches be reduced to improve decision making?

作者信息

Lau Annie Y S, Coiera Enrico W

机构信息

Centre for Health Informatics, University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney NSW 2052, Australia.

出版信息

J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jan-Feb;16(1):54-65. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2557. Epub 2008 Oct 24.

DOI:10.1197/jamia.M2557
PMID:18952948
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2605604/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To test whether the anchoring and order cognitive biases experienced during search by consumers using information retrieval systems can be corrected to improve the accuracy of, and confidence in, answers to health-related questions.

DESIGN

A prospective study was conducted on 227 undergraduate students who used an online search engine developed by the authors to find health information and then answer six randomly assigned consumer health questions. The search engine was fitted with a baseline user interface and two modified interfaces specifically designed to debias anchoring or order effect. Each subject used all three user interfaces, answering two questions with each.

MEASUREMENTS

Frequencies of correct answers pre- and post- search and confidence in answers were collected. Time taken to search and then answer a question, the number of searches conducted and the number of links accessed in a search session were also recorded. User preferences for each interface were measured. Chi-square analyses tested for the presence of biases with each user interface. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test checked for equality of distribution of the evidence analyzed for each user interface. The test for difference between proportions and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test were used when comparing interfaces.

RESULTS

Anchoring and order effects were present amongst subjects using the baseline search interface (anchoring: p < 0.001; order: p = 0.026). With use of the order debiasing interface, the initial order effect was no longer present (p = 0.34) but there was no significant improvement in decision accuracy (p = 0.23). While the anchoring effect persisted when using the anchor debiasing interface (p < 0.001), its use was associated with a 10.3% increase in subjects who had answered incorrectly pre-search, answering correctly post-search (p = 0.10). Subjects using either debiasing user interface conducted fewer searches and accessed more documents compared to baseline (p < 0.001). In addition, the majority of subjects preferred using a debiasing interface over baseline.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that (i) debiasing strategies can be integrated into the user interface of a search engine; (ii) information interpretation behaviors can be to some extent debiased; and that (iii) attempts to debias information searching by consumers can influence their ability to answer health-related questions accurately, their confidence in these answers, as well as the strategies used to conduct searches and retrieve information.

摘要

目的

测试消费者使用信息检索系统进行搜索时所经历的锚定和顺序认知偏差是否可以得到纠正,以提高与健康相关问题答案的准确性和信心。

设计

对227名本科生进行了一项前瞻性研究,他们使用作者开发的在线搜索引擎查找健康信息,然后回答六个随机分配的消费者健康问题。该搜索引擎配备了一个基线用户界面和两个经过专门设计以消除锚定或顺序效应偏差的修改界面。每个受试者使用所有三个用户界面,每个界面回答两个问题。

测量

收集搜索前后正确答案的频率以及对答案的信心。还记录了搜索并回答一个问题所需的时间、搜索会话中进行的搜索次数和访问的链接数量。测量了用户对每个界面的偏好。卡方分析测试每个用户界面是否存在偏差。柯尔莫哥洛夫-斯米尔诺夫检验检查每个用户界面所分析证据分布的均等性。比较界面时使用比例差异检验和威尔科克森符号秩检验。

结果

使用基线搜索界面的受试者中存在锚定和顺序效应(锚定:p < 0.001;顺序:p = 0.026)。使用消除顺序偏差的界面后,初始顺序效应不再存在(p = 0.34),但决策准确性没有显著提高(p = 0.23)。虽然使用消除锚定偏差的界面时锚定效应仍然存在(p < 0.001),但其使用与搜索前回答错误但搜索后回答正确的受试者增加10.3%相关(p = 0.10)。与基线相比,使用任何一种消除偏差用户界面的受试者进行的搜索较少,访问的文档较多(p < 0.001)。此外,大多数受试者更喜欢使用消除偏差的界面而不是基线界面。

结论

本研究提供的证据表明:(i)可以将消除偏差策略整合到搜索引擎的用户界面中;(ii)信息解释行为在一定程度上可以消除偏差;以及(iii)试图消除消费者信息搜索偏差的做法可以影响他们准确回答与健康相关问题的能力、对这些答案的信心,以及用于进行搜索和检索信息的策略。