China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Thinking and Problem-Solving
Published in Mohamed Ahmed Abd El-Hay, Understanding Psychology for Medicine and Nursing, 2019
A cognitive bias is a systematic (non-random) error in thinking, in which an error in reasoning, evaluating, remembering, or other cognitive process often occurs, leading to systematic deviations from a standard of rationality or good judgment (Ariely, 2008). A cognitive bias is a mind set that sees something in a certain preconceived way. It is a matter of one’s perceptions of something conforming to one’s prejudged expectations (like any bias) and therefore influences how and what one hears, sees, or experiences. Cognitive biases distort thinking, influence beliefs, and affect everyday decisions. These biases may be fairly obvious, and one is able to recognize them, or they may be subtle so that they are almost impossible to notice. Cognitive biases are not to be confused with logical fallacies, which are errors in logical argument.
Diagnostic strategy
Published in Caroline J Rodgers, Richard Harrington, Helping Hands: An Introduction to Diagnostic Strategy and Clinical Reasoning, 2019
Caroline J Rodgers, Richard Harrington
For all clinicians, the question is, ‘how can we optimise our decision making?’ Which factors are under our control, and what changes can we make to what we do and how we function in our workplaces to help avoid error in the diagnostic process? This book focuses on raising awareness of the diagnostic strategies and tools we use to make clinical decisions, and briefly touches on cognitive bias in decision making and approaches to help prevent this (cognitive debiasing).
Using evidence and logic in everyday clinical reasoning, communication and legal and scientific argumentation
Published in Milos Jenicek, Foundations of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019
A cognitive error or cognitive bias (terms often used interchangeably across the literature) denotes a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular, within our area of interest, in medical and clinical situations or in medical research reasoning and conclusions.10,22 For example, ‘hindsight bias’ (loosely synonymous with outcome bias) is a cognitive error as well. It is a tendency for people with outcome knowledge to exaggerate the extent to which they would have predicted the event beforehand. Bias as it is used currently across the medical literature has multiple meanings including almost any flaw in reasoning and decision-making, especially in medical research (research design, execution and evaluation). It is increasingly discussed because even ‘biased’ research results and their uses may be detrimental to patient safety and health. In this context, bias is in a great part synonymous with fallacy.
Healthcare provider knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes regarding opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in North America prior to the emergence of COVID-19: A systematic review of qualitative research
Published in Canadian Journal of Pain, 2023
Louise V. Bell, Sarah F. Fitzgerald, David Flusk, Patricia A. Poulin, Joshua A. Rash
Providers reported concerns over patient adverse effects, physical tolerance, and addiction. Moreover, experiencing or witnessing negative patient-related salient events (e.g., patients who have overdosed) and provider-related salient events (e.g., threat to provider) contributed to hesitancy surrounding prescribing opioids to manage pain. Salient negative events can result in cognitive biases that impact the delivery of medical care,61,62 such as availability63 and representativeness biases.64 Cognitive behavioral techniques could be beneficial for highlighting cognitive biases. For example, cognitive restructuring could be used to acknowledge distorted thoughts and promote reasoned practice.65 Incorporating cognitive bias awareness into the curriculum at medical centers has yielded promising results, demonstrating that residents were able to recognize biases and create strategies to avoid biased reasoning.66–68 Given associations between chronic opioid use and an increased risk for opioid use disorder, overdose, and death,69–72 it is difficult to interpret whether concerns over adverse effects represent an accurate appreciation for potential opioid-related harms or relative risk aversion.
Using an experiential learning model to teach clinical reasoning theory and cognitive bias: an evaluation of a first-year medical student curriculum
Published in Medical Education Online, 2023
Justin J. Choi, Jeanie Gribben, Myriam Lin, Erika L. Abramson, Juliet Aizer
Clinical reasoning, which can be defined as the cognitive processes clinicians employ to diagnose and treat patients, is an integral component of professional competence among physicians and trainees[1]. Cognitive errors, especially those associated with common cognitive biases in medicine (e.g., anchoring bias, availability bias, premature closure), contribute to a majority of diagnostic errors in clinical practice [2–8]. A national survey of medicine clerkship directors in the USA reported that the majority of medical students entering medicine clerkships have a fair or poor understanding of clinical reasoning concepts[9]. Most respondents reported that a structured curriculum in clinical reasoning should be taught across the medical education continuum, including the pre-clerkship years. Furthermore, to address the harms of diagnostic errors in clinical practice, the National Academies of Sciences has called for the creation of explicit, theory-informed clinical reasoning curricula in undergraduate and graduate medical education [10,11].
Inclusiveness of cognitive bias modification research toward children and young people with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review
Published in International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 2022
Nora B. Schmidt, Leen Vereenooghe
Twenty studies addressed negative interpretations and nine addressed hostile interpretations, most frequently in relation to ambiguous scenarios (n = 24), but also to ambiguous faces (n = 3) or word-image pairs (n = 2). We identified six ways in which cognitive bias was measured: (a) the extent to which participants agreed with particular interpretations, (b) how similar to previously presented ambiguous scenarios participants rated interpretations, (c) which interpretations of other people’s actions or facial expressions participants selected using multiple choice or forced choice tasks, (d) whether participants formed negative or benign sentences out of scrambled text, (e) how quickly participants completed word fragments which positively or negatively resolved scenarios, or (f) how participants explained ambiguous stimuli in response to open interview questions. Across studies, the number of CBM-I sessions ranged from one to 20, with a mean of 5.21 (SD = 5.51). Trainings lasted between one day and 70 days (M = 14.4, SD = 19.0) and were either conducted at school, at home or in the research lab. Most studies used computerised CBM-I (n = 20).