• 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

测试决策辅助工具是否引入认知偏差:一项随机试验的结果。

Testing whether decision aids introduce cognitive biases: results of a randomized trial.

机构信息

VA Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

出版信息

Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Aug;80(2):158-63. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.021. Epub 2009 Dec 9.

DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.021
PMID:20004545
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2889196/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Women at high risk of breast cancer face a difficult decision whether to take medications like tamoxifen to prevent a first breast cancer diagnosis. Decision aids (DAs) offer a promising method of helping them make this decision. But concern lingers that DAs might introduce cognitive biases.

METHODS

We recruited 663 women at high risk of breast cancer and presented them with a DA designed to experimentally test potential methods of identifying and reducing cognitive biases that could influence this decision, by varying specific aspects of the DA across participants in a factorial design.

RESULTS

Participants were susceptible to a cognitive bias - an order effect - such that those who learned first about the risks of tamoxifen thought more favorably of the drug than women who learned first about the benefits. This order effect was eliminated among women who received additional information about competing health risks.

CONCLUSION

We discovered that the order of risk/benefit information influenced women's perceptions of tamoxifen. This bias was eliminated by providing contextual information about competing health risks.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

We have demonstrated the feasibility of using factorial experimental designs to test whether DAs introduce cognitive biases, and whether specific elements of DAs can reduce such biases.

摘要

目的

患有乳腺癌高风险的女性面临着一个艰难的决策,即是否服用他莫昔芬等药物来预防首次乳腺癌诊断。决策辅助工具(DA)为帮助她们做出这一决策提供了一种很有前途的方法。但人们仍然担心 DA 可能会引入认知偏差。

方法

我们招募了 663 名患有乳腺癌高风险的女性,并向她们展示了一种 DA,旨在通过在参与者中采用因子设计来实验性地测试潜在的识别和减少可能影响这一决策的认知偏差的方法,具体方法是改变 DA 的特定方面。

结果

参与者易受认知偏差的影响,即顺序效应,即那些首先了解他莫昔芬风险的人比首先了解其益处的人对该药物的评价更高。对于那些收到关于竞争健康风险的额外信息的女性,这种顺序效应被消除了。

结论

我们发现风险/收益信息的顺序会影响女性对他莫昔芬的看法。通过提供关于竞争健康风险的背景信息,可以消除这种偏见。

实践意义

我们已经证明了使用因子实验设计来测试 DA 是否会引入认知偏差,以及 DA 的特定元素是否可以减少这种偏差的可行性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ac6c/2889196/6c0dd36d9b2d/nihms158927f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ac6c/2889196/716f8577f27e/nihms158927f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ac6c/2889196/6c0dd36d9b2d/nihms158927f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ac6c/2889196/716f8577f27e/nihms158927f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ac6c/2889196/6c0dd36d9b2d/nihms158927f2.jpg

相似文献

1
Testing whether decision aids introduce cognitive biases: results of a randomized trial.测试决策辅助工具是否引入认知偏差:一项随机试验的结果。
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Aug;80(2):158-63. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.021. Epub 2009 Dec 9.
2
Women's decisions regarding tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: responses to a tailored decision aid.女性对用于乳腺癌预防的他莫昔芬的决策:对定制决策辅助的回应。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Feb;119(3):613-20. doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0618-4.
3
Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs.在他莫昔芬预防决策辅助工具中传达副作用风险:象形图的去偏影响。
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Nov;73(2):209-14. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.010.
4
Women's interest in taking tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer prevention: response to a tailored decision aid.女性对服用他莫昔芬和雷洛昔芬预防乳腺癌的兴趣:对量身定制的决策辅助工具的反应。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Jun;127(3):681-8. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1450-1. Epub 2011 Mar 26.
5
Informed choice about breast cancer prevention: randomized controlled trial of an online decision aid intervention.关于乳腺癌预防的明智选择:在线决策辅助干预的随机对照试验。
Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(5):R74. doi: 10.1186/bcr3468.
6
Improving informed consent: pilot of a decision aid for women invited to participate in a breast cancer prevention trial (IBIS-II DCIS).改善知情同意:针对受邀参加乳腺癌预防试验(IBIS-II DCIS)的女性的决策辅助工具试点项目
Health Expect. 2008 Sep;11(3):252-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00498.x.
7
Chemoprevention of breast cancer. A joint guideline from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and the Canadian Breast Cancer Initiative's Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer.乳腺癌的化学预防。加拿大预防性医疗保健特别工作组与加拿大乳腺癌倡议组织乳腺癌护理与治疗临床实践指南指导委员会联合制定的指南。
CMAJ. 2001 Jun 12;164(12):1681-90.
8
How should we inform women at higher risk of breast cancer about tamoxifen? An approach with a decision guide.我们应该如何向乳腺癌高危女性告知他莫昔芬的相关信息?一种采用决策指南的方法。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005 Nov;94(2):153-9. doi: 10.1007/s10549-005-6932-6.
9
Effects of tamoxifen and raloxifene on memory and other cognitive abilities: cognition in the study of tamoxifen and raloxifene.他莫昔芬和雷洛昔芬对记忆及其他认知能力的影响:他莫昔芬与雷洛昔芬研究中的认知
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 1;27(31):5144-52. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.0716. Epub 2009 Sep 21.
10
Benefits and harms of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) to reduce breast cancer risk: a cross-sectional study of methods to communicate risk in primary care.选择性雌激素受体调节剂(SERMs)降低乳腺癌风险的获益与危害:初级保健中沟通风险方法的横断面研究。
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Nov 28;69(689):e836-e842. doi: 10.3399/bjgp19X706841. Print 2019 Dec.

引用本文的文献

1
Critical Care Physicians' Perspectives on Nudging in Communication.重症监护医师对沟通中助推策略的看法。
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Sep 2;8(9):e2531199. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.31199.
2
Ethical Design of Data-Driven Decision Support Tools for Improving Cancer Care: Embedded Ethics Review of the 4D PICTURE Project.用于改善癌症护理的数据驱动决策支持工具的伦理设计:4D PICTURE项目的嵌入式伦理审查
JMIR Cancer. 2025 Apr 10;11:e65566. doi: 10.2196/65566.
3
Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.《让数字有意义:健康领域概率沟通的循证综述》的范围、方法及概述性研究结果:一项系统综述
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241255334. doi: 10.1177/23814683241255334. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
4
How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.点(单概率)任务如何受到概率格式的影响,第1部分:使数字有意义的系统评价
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241255333. doi: 10.1177/23814683241255333. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
5
How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.点(单概率)任务如何受到概率格式的影响,第二部分:一项使数字有意义的系统综述。
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241255337. doi: 10.1177/23814683241255337. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
6
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.
7
Poor Consumer Comprehension and Plan Selection Inconsistencies Under the 2016 HealthCare.gov Choice Architecture.2016年医保市场选择架构下消费者理解不足与计划选择不一致的问题
MDM Policy Pract. 2017 Jan-Jun;2(1). doi: 10.1177/2381468317716441. Epub 2017 Jun 28.
8
Subjective Numeracy and the Influence of Order and Amount of Audible Information on Perceived Medication Value.主观数字能力以及可听信息的顺序和数量对感知药物价值的影响。
Med Decis Making. 2017 Apr;37(3):230-238. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16650665. Epub 2016 Jul 10.
9
Effects of interventions on use of hearing protectors among farm operators: A randomized controlled trial.干预措施对农场经营者使用听力保护器的影响:一项随机对照试验。
Int J Audiol. 2016;55 Suppl 1(0):S3-12. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1122239. Epub 2016 Jan 14.
10
"Don't Want No Risk and Don't Want No Problems": Public Understandings of the Risks and Benefits of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the United States.“不想冒风险,不想有问题”:美国公众对无创产前检测风险与益处的认知
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2015;6(1):5-20. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2014.994722.

本文引用的文献

1
Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs.在他莫昔芬预防决策辅助工具中传达副作用风险:象形图的去偏影响。
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Nov;73(2):209-14. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.010.
2
Screening experiments and the use of fractional factorial designs in behavioral intervention research.行为干预研究中的筛选实验及部分因子设计的应用
Am J Public Health. 2008 Aug;98(8):1354-9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.127563. Epub 2008 Jun 12.
3
Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk of occurrence.呈现药物副作用信息的不同方式:发生的增量风险与总风险。
J Health Commun. 2008 Mar;13(2):107-24. doi: 10.1080/10810730701854011.
4
Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity.重新思考决策辅助工具的目标:呼吁概念清晰。
Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):609-18. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07306780. Epub 2007 Sep 14.
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
Is information always a good thing? Helping patients make "good" decisions.信息总是一件好事吗?帮助患者做出“明智”的决定。
Med Care. 2002 Sep;40(9 Suppl):V39-44. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000023954.85887.69.
7
Decision aids for patients considering options affecting cancer outcomes: evidence of efficacy and policy implications.为考虑影响癌症预后的治疗方案的患者提供的决策辅助工具:疗效证据及政策影响
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999(25):67-80. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024212.
8
Feasibility and effects of decision aids.决策辅助工具的可行性与效果
Med Decis Making. 2000 Jan-Mar;20(1):112-27. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0002000114.
9
Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review.面向面临健康治疗或筛查决策的患者的决策辅助工具:系统评价
BMJ. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):731-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.731.
10
Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study.他莫昔芬预防乳腺癌:国家外科辅助乳腺和肠道项目P-1研究报告。
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Sep 16;90(18):1371-88. doi: 10.1093/jnci/90.18.1371.