Suppr超能文献

医学与启发法:认知偏差与医疗决策

Medicine and heuristics: cognitive biases and medical decision-making.

作者信息

Whelehan Dale F, Conlon Kevin C, Ridgway Paul F

机构信息

Discipline of Surgery, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.

出版信息

Ir J Med Sci. 2020 Nov;189(4):1477-1484. doi: 10.1007/s11845-020-02235-1. Epub 2020 May 14.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Clinical decision-making is a daily practice conducted by medical practitioners, yet the processes surrounding it are poorly understood. The influence of 'shortcuts' in clinical decision-making, known as heuristics, remains unknown. This paper explores heuristics and the valuable role they play in medical practice, as well as offering potential solutions to minimize the risk of incorrect decision-making.

METHOD

The quasi-systematic review was conducted according to modified PRISMA guidelines utilizing the electronic databases Medline, Embase and Cinahl. All English language papers including bias and the medical profession were included. Papers with evidence from other healthcare professions were included if medical practitioners were in the study sample.

DISCUSSION

The most common decisional shortcuts used in medicine are the Availability, Anchoring and Confirmatory heuristics. The Representativeness, Overconfidence and Bandwagon effects are also prevalent in medical practice. Heuristics are mostly positive but can also result in negative consequences if not utilized appropriately. Factors such as personality and level of experience may influence a doctor's use of heuristics. Heuristics are influenced by the context and conditions in which they are performed. Mitigating strategies such as reflective practice and technology may reduce the likelihood of inappropriate use.

CONCLUSION

It remains unknown if heuristics are primarily positive or negative for clinical decision-making. Future efforts should assess heuristics in real-time and controlled trials should be applied to assess the potential impact of mitigating factors in reducing the negative impact of heuristics and optimizing their efficiency for positive outcomes.

摘要

引言

临床决策是医学从业者的日常工作,但围绕这一过程的情况却鲜为人知。临床决策中被称为启发法的“捷径”的影响尚不清楚。本文探讨了启发法及其在医学实践中所起的重要作用,并提供了一些潜在的解决方案,以尽量减少错误决策的风险。

方法

根据修改后的PRISMA指南,利用电子数据库Medline、Embase和Cinahl进行了半系统综述。纳入所有包括偏差和医学专业的英文论文。如果研究样本中有医学从业者,则纳入来自其他医疗保健专业的有证据的论文。

讨论

医学中最常用的决策捷径是可得性启发法、锚定启发法和证实性启发法。代表性启发法、过度自信效应和从众效应在医学实践中也很普遍。启发法大多是积极的,但如果使用不当也可能导致负面后果。个性和经验水平等因素可能会影响医生对启发法的使用。启发法会受到其执行的背景和条件的影响。反思性实践和技术等缓解策略可能会降低不恰当使用的可能性。

结论

启发法对临床决策主要是积极还是消极尚不清楚。未来的工作应实时评估启发法,并应进行对照试验,以评估缓解因素在减少启发法负面影响和优化其积极结果效率方面的潜在影响。

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