• 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

临床决策问卷工具中临床医生对认知错误的认知(CATChES)的开发与验证

The development and validation of the clinicians' awareness towards cognitive errors (CATChES) in clinical decision making questionnaire tool.

作者信息

Chew Keng Sheng, Kueh Yee Cheng, Abdul Aziz Adlihafizi

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300, Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia.

Unit of Biostatistics and Research Methodology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 16150, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia.

出版信息

BMC Med Educ. 2017 Mar 21;17(1):58. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-0897-0.

DOI:10.1186/s12909-017-0897-0
PMID:28320367
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5359835/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite their importance on diagnostic accuracy, there is a paucity of literature on questionnaire tools to assess clinicians' awareness toward cognitive errors. A validation study was conducted to develop a questionnaire tool to evaluate the Clinician's Awareness Towards Cognitive Errors (CATChES) in clinical decision making.

METHODS

This questionnaire is divided into two parts. Part A is to evaluate the clinicians' awareness towards cognitive errors in clinical decision making while Part B is to evaluate their perception towards specific cognitive errors. Content validation for both parts was first determined followed by construct validation for Part A. Construct validation for Part B was not determined as the responses were set in a dichotomous format.

RESULTS

For content validation, all items in both Part A and Part B were rated as "excellent" in terms of their relevance in clinical settings. For construct validation using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for Part A, a two-factor model with total variance extraction of 60% was determined. Two items were deleted. Then, the EFA was repeated showing that all factor loadings are above the cut-off value of >0.5. The Cronbach's alpha for both factors are above 0.6.

CONCLUSION

The CATChES questionnaire tool is a valid questionnaire tool aimed to evaluate the awareness among clinicians toward cognitive errors in clinical decision making.

摘要

背景

尽管问卷工具对诊断准确性很重要,但关于评估临床医生对认知错误认识的文献却很少。开展了一项验证研究,以开发一种问卷工具来评估临床医生在临床决策中对认知错误的认识(CATChES)。

方法

该问卷分为两部分。A部分用于评估临床医生在临床决策中对认知错误的认识,而B部分用于评估他们对特定认知错误的看法。首先确定两部分的内容效度,然后对A部分进行结构效度验证。由于B部分的回答采用二分法格式,因此未确定其结构效度。

结果

在内容效度方面,A部分和B部分的所有项目在临床环境中的相关性方面均被评为“优秀”。对于使用探索性因子分析(EFA)对A部分进行的结构效度验证,确定了一个总方差提取率为60%的双因素模型。删除了两个项目。然后,重复进行探索性因子分析,结果显示所有因子载荷均高于>0.5的临界值。两个因子的克朗巴哈系数均高于0.6。

结论

CATChES问卷工具是一种有效的问卷工具,旨在评估临床医生在临床决策中对认知错误的认识。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d289/5359835/869c45d1f84e/12909_2017_897_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d289/5359835/dfb0cc8373f1/12909_2017_897_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d289/5359835/869c45d1f84e/12909_2017_897_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d289/5359835/dfb0cc8373f1/12909_2017_897_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d289/5359835/869c45d1f84e/12909_2017_897_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
The development and validation of the clinicians' awareness towards cognitive errors (CATChES) in clinical decision making questionnaire tool.临床决策问卷工具中临床医生对认知错误的认知(CATChES)的开发与验证
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Mar 21;17(1):58. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-0897-0.
2
Diagnostic decision-making and strategies to improve diagnosis.诊断决策制定与改善诊断的策略。
Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2013 Oct;43(9):232-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cppeds.2013.07.003.
3
Diagnostic errors and flaws in clinical reasoning: mechanisms and prevention in practice.临床推理中的诊断错误和缺陷:实践中的机制和预防。
Swiss Med Wkly. 2012 Oct 23;142:w13706. doi: 10.4414/smw.2012.13706. eCollection 2012.
4
Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine.过度自信作为医学诊断错误的一个原因。
Am J Med. 2008 May;121(5 Suppl):S2-23. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.001.
5
Development of PRIDe: a tool to assess physicians' preference of role in clinical decision making.PRIDe 工具的开发:评估医生在临床决策中角色偏好的工具。
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Aug;88(2):277-83. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.003. Epub 2012 Apr 27.
6
Clinicians' Attitudes Towards Outcome and Process Monitoring: A Validation of the Outcome Measurement Questionnaire.临床医生对结果监测和过程监测的态度:结果测量问卷的验证
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):634-41. doi: 10.1007/s10488-014-0597-6.
7
Development, reliability and validity of a tool, to measure emergency department clinicians' attitudes towards family presence (FP) during acute deterioration in adult patients.一种用于测量急诊科临床医生在成年患者急性病情恶化期间对家属在场(FP)态度的工具的开发、信度和效度。
Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2015 May;18(2):106-14. doi: 10.1016/j.aenj.2014.12.002. Epub 2015 Feb 3.
8
Development and validation of an instrument to measure physician awareness of bioethics and medical law in Oman.开发并验证一种在阿曼衡量医生对生物伦理学和医学法律认知的工具。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 May 22;22(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00619-1.
9
Information needs of cancer patients: Validation of the Greek Cassileth's Information Styles Questionnaire.癌症患者的信息需求:希腊版卡西莱思信息风格问卷的验证
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2016 Feb;20:49-57. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2015.11.002. Epub 2015 Dec 11.
10
Evaluating team decision-making as an emergent phenomenon.评估团队决策作为一种涌现现象。
Postgrad Med J. 2018 Apr;94(1110):216-219. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135411. Epub 2018 Jan 9.

本文引用的文献

1
Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing.认知去偏倚 1:偏倚的起源和去偏倚理论。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):ii58-ii64. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001712. Epub 2013 Jul 23.
2
Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine.过度自信作为医学诊断错误的一个原因。
Am J Med. 2008 May;121(5 Suppl):S2-23. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.001.
3
Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations.CVI(内容效度指数)是内容效度的可接受指标吗?评估与建议。
Res Nurs Health. 2007 Aug;30(4):459-67. doi: 10.1002/nur.20199.
4
Profiles in patient safety: A "perfect storm" in the emergency department.患者安全概况:急诊科的“完美风暴”
Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Aug;14(8):743-9. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2007.04.011. Epub 2007 May 30.
5
Diagnostic error in internal medicine.内科诊断错误。
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Jul 11;165(13):1493-9. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.13.1493.
6
Five pitfalls in decisions about diagnosis and prescribing.诊断与开处方决策中的五个陷阱。
BMJ. 2005 Apr 2;330(7494):781-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7494.781.
7
Profiles in patient safety: authority gradients in medical error.患者安全概况:医疗差错中的权威梯度
Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Dec;11(12):1341-5. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2004.07.005.
8
The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them.认知错误在诊断中的重要性以及将其最小化的策略。
Acad Med. 2003 Aug;78(8):775-80. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003.
9
Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors' decision-making biases.医学决策中的合理性:关于医生决策偏见的文献综述
J Eval Clin Pract. 2001 May;7(2):97-107. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00284.x.
10
Determination and quantification of content validity.内容效度的确定与量化。
Nurs Res. 1986 Nov-Dec;35(6):382-5.