• 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

与同事共事:社会心理学科学中的陷阱。

Practicing Medicine with Colleagues: Pitfalls from Social Psychology Science.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Apr;34(4):624-626. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-04839-5. Epub 2019 Jan 31.

DOI:10.1007/s11606-019-04839-5
PMID:30706302
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6445913/
Abstract

This perspective reviews three pitfalls from psychology science that can distort clinical assessments and contribute to interpersonal conflicts. One pitfall is the illusion that one's own subjective perceptions or judgments are objective observations or interpretations that reasonable colleagues would share. A second pitfall involves self-serving situational attributions rather than disposition attributions for explaining missteps after things go wrong. A third pitfall is confirmation bias that leads to a perseverance of erroneous beliefs, a tendency to mostly seek supportive colleagues, and a failure to check for dissenting viewpoints. An awareness of these three pitfalls may help clinicians improve patient care when practicing with colleagues.

摘要

这篇观点文章回顾了心理学科学中的三个陷阱,这些陷阱可能会扭曲临床评估并导致人际冲突。一个陷阱是,人们会错误地认为自己的主观感知或判断是客观观察或解释,而其他合理的同事也会认同这些观察或解释。另一个陷阱涉及到自利情境归因,而不是在事情出错后用性格归因来解释失误。第三个陷阱是确认偏差,它导致错误信念的坚持,倾向于主要寻求支持性的同事,并且不检查不同的观点。当与同事一起实践时,意识到这三个陷阱可能有助于临床医生改善患者护理。

相似文献

1
Practicing Medicine with Colleagues: Pitfalls from Social Psychology Science.与同事共事:社会心理学科学中的陷阱。
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Apr;34(4):624-626. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-04839-5. Epub 2019 Jan 31.
2
Reason, reality and objectivity--shared dogmas and distortions in the way both 'scientistic' and 'postmodern' commentators frame the EBM debate.理性、现实与客观性——“科学主义”和“后现代”评论者在构建循证医学辩论方式上的共同教条与歪曲。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Oct;14(5):665-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01075.x.
3
Interpersonal issues between pain physician and patient: strategies to reduce conflict.疼痛科医生与患者之间的人际问题:减少冲突的策略。
Pain Med. 2008 Nov;9(8):1118-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00392.x.
4
Judging whether a patient is actually improving: more pitfalls from the science of human perception.判断患者是否真的在好转:人类感知科学中的更多陷阱。
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Sep;27(9):1195-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2097-2. Epub 2012 May 17.
5
A qualitative study on factors influencing the situational and contextual motivation of medical specialists.一项关于影响医学专家情境和背景动机因素的定性研究。
Int J Med Educ. 2020 Jun 19;11:111-119. doi: 10.5116/ijme.5e88.b9ff.
6
Reasonableness, Credibility, and Clinical Disagreement.合理性、可信度与临床分歧
AMA J Ethics. 2017 Feb 1;19(2):176-182. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.stas1-1702.
7
The spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency in social anxiety.社交焦虑中的聚光灯效应与透明度错觉。
J Anxiety Disord. 2007;21(6):804-19. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.11.006. Epub 2006 Dec 12.
8
Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others.旁观者眼中的客观性:对自身与他人偏见的不同认知。
Psychol Rev. 2004 Jul;111(3):781-99. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.781.
9
Compassionate patient care and personal survival in orthopaedics. A 35-year perspective.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Apr(361):250-60. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199904000-00032.
10
Political diversity will improve social psychological science.政治多样性将促进社会心理科学的发展。
Behav Brain Sci. 2015;38:e130. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X14000430. Epub 2014 Jul 18.

引用本文的文献

1
"Nothing Comes to Mind…": Challenges With Identifying One's Own Role in Preventable Adverse Outcomes in Interprofessional Birthing Unit Teams, and the Implications for Quality Improvement Initiatives.“毫无头绪……”:跨专业分娩单元团队中确定自身在可预防不良结局中的角色面临的挑战及其对质量改进举措的影响
Perspect Med Educ. 2025 May 7;14(1):243-254. doi: 10.5334/pme.1651. eCollection 2025.
2
Post Hoc Bias in Treatment Decisions.事后偏见对治疗决策的影响。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Sep 3;7(9):e2431123. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.31123.
3
Psychology of envy towards medical colleagues.对医学同行的嫉妒心理
J R Soc Med. 2023 Jul;116(7):229-235. doi: 10.1177/01410768231182880. Epub 2023 Jun 28.

本文引用的文献

1
Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review.与医疗决策相关的认知偏差:一项系统综述。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Nov 3;16(1):138. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0377-1.
2
Reflective Practice and Stress: Helpful, Harmful or Uninfluential in Critical Thinking.反思性实践与压力:对批判性思维有帮助、有害还是没有影响
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Sep;30(9):1237-8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3423-2.
3
Reflecting on Diagnostic Errors: Taking a Second Look is Not Enough.反思诊断错误:仅重新审视是不够的。
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Sep;30(9):1270-4. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3369-4.
4
The Association Between Sensemaking During Physician Team Rounds and Hospitalized Patients' Outcomes.医生团队查房时的意义建构与住院患者预后之间的关联。
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Dec;30(12):1821-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3377-4. Epub 2015 May 27.
5
Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy.医学决策中的认知偏差与启发式方法:运用系统检索策略的批判性综述
Med Decis Making. 2015 May;35(4):539-57. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14547740. Epub 2014 Aug 21.
6
Cognitive debiasing 2: impediments to and strategies for change.认知去偏 2:改变的障碍和策略。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):ii65-ii72. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001713. Epub 2013 Aug 30.
7
Judging whether a patient is actually improving: more pitfalls from the science of human perception.判断患者是否真的在好转:人类感知科学中的更多陷阱。
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Sep;27(9):1195-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2097-2. Epub 2012 May 17.
8
Ambulatory facility design and patients' perceptions of healthcare quality.门诊设施设计与患者对医疗质量的感知。
HERD. 2008 Summer;1(4):35-54. doi: 10.1177/193758670800100405.
9
Improving patient care. The cognitive psychology of missed diagnoses.改善患者护理。漏诊的认知心理学。
Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jan 18;142(2):115-20. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-2-200501180-00010.
10
They saw a game: a case study.他们看到了一个案例研究:一场博弈。
J Abnorm Psychol. 1954 Jan;49(1):129-34. doi: 10.1037/h0057880.