China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Patient Engagement in Safety
Published in Richard J. Holden, Rupa S. Valdez, The Patient Factor, 2021
Patients may decide to actively seek out and gather information about their health on the internet and in the library. A body of literature has examined patient information-seeking behaviors particularly around complex and serious illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Information seeking may be motivated by the need to make decisions about treatment options, as well as informing oneself about disease mechanisms, progression, as well as management. On the one hand, misinformation and vulnerability to confirmation bias may compromise a patient’s safety (Meppelink et al., 2019). On the other hand, through actively seeking out information, patients can become more informed about their condition, enabling them to engage in their safety (Househ et al., 2014).
Crime and Justice Myths
Published in Michael C. Braswell, Belinda R. McCarthy, Bernard J. McCarthy, Justice, Crime, and Ethics, 2019
Because myths are often passed to consumers who are in agreement with the expressed values, their authenticity is seldom questioned. Kappeler and Potter (2018) note that myths are often unscientific, and that they cannot be verified. Yet when people accept myth as fact it is because they agree with the beliefs about proper behavior, so they are not likely to conduct an exhaustive search for supporting facts and evidence. People are more likely to doubt information that violates their existing beliefs than information with which they already agree. Lazer and colleagues (2018, p. 1095) state: . . . people prefer information that confirms their preexisting attitudes (selective exposure), view information consistent with their preexisting beliefs as more persuasive than dissonant information (confirmation bias), and are inclined to accept information that pleases them (desirability bias). Prior partisan and ideological beliefs might prevent acceptance of fact checking of a given fake news story.
Clinical Development Plan and Clinical Trial Design
Published in Mark Chang, John Balser, Jim Roach, Robin Bliss, Innovative Strategies, Statistical Solutions and Simulations for Modern Clinical Trials, 2019
Mark Chang, John Balser, Jim Roach, Robin Bliss
Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. Confirmation bias is best illustrated using examples in clinical trials. When knowledge of the treatment assignment can affect the objective evaluation of treatment effect and lead to systematic distortion of the trial conclusions, we have what is referred to as observer or ascertainment bias.
Do Flexible Administration Procedures Promote Individualized Clinical Assessments? An Explorative Analysis of How Clinicians Utilize the Funnel Structure of the SCID-5-AMPD Module I: LPFS
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2023
Aleksander Heltne, Johan Braeken, Benjamin Hummelen, Sara Germans Selvik, Tore Buer Christensen, Muirne C. S. Paap
Even if similar results can be obtained in samples of untrained raters, it is important to acknowledge that the funnel structure of the SCID-5-AMPD-I may introduce an additional risk of confirmation bias as compared to standard fixed administration procedures in which all items are administered to all patients. When an initial impression about the patient is not only allowed to, but rather is supposed to, affect decisions about which sections of the interview to administer, there is a risk that clinicians will be more likely to selectively seek information which confirms rather than rejects this initial impression. While there are elements in the interview´s administration guidelines which could limit the impact of administration bias (e.g., the instruction to assess increasing levels until the level under assessment no longer applies), it was beyond the scope of the current study to evaluate the impact of confirmation bias on the administration and scoring of the SCID-5-AMPD-I. Given that the risk of confirmation bias in clinical decision making and diagnostic assessments has been documented in numerous studies (e.g., Crumlish & Kelly, 2009; Mendel et al., 2011; Strohmer & Shivy, 1994) and may be associated with erroneous diagnostic conclusions (Mendel et al., 2011), it is important to address this issue in future research. Before fully embracing the funnel structure of the SCID-5-AMPD-I, we therefore strongly recommend evaluating whether the instrument introduces confirmation bias.
Bioethics and the Moral Authority of Experience
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2023
Ryan H. Nelson, Bryanna Moore, Holly Fernandez Lynch, Miranda R. Waggoner, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby
While some cognitive biases stem from a conscious or unconscious desire for a certain output of the deliberative process, bias may also influence the inputs based upon the knowledge one brings to bear on a debate. Confirmation bias, for example, is the tendency to seek and recall evidence that supports one’s favored view (Nickerson 1998). The closely related availability bias is the tendency to treat examples that come readily to mind as more representative than they are (Tversky and Kahneman 1973). And, of course, our experience shapes the examples that come readily to mind. If you deal with criminals all day, you may think that people are more prone to criminality than they are. If you work in the ICU, you may overestimate the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19. And so on.
How do health and social care professionals in England and Wales assess mental capacity? A literature review
Published in Disability and Rehabilitation, 2020
Mark Jayes, Rebecca Palmer, Pamela Enderby, Anthea Sutton
An important limitation of this review is that a single researcher was primarily responsible for study selection, data extraction, quality assessment and data synthesis. The researcher’s expectations, based on prior clinical experience, may have introduced confirmation bias. However, the first author consulted his coauthors throughout the review process, to raise queries about the search strategy and the results obtained. Although the studies reviewed reported practice carried out by a range of professionals working in various health and social care settings with different groups of service users, the majority of studies focused on practice relating to two main clinical populations: people with learning disabilities and people with mental health conditions; this should be considered when attempting to generalize the review’s findings to other groups. Further research is required to increase our understanding of how professionals complete capacity assessments for different groups of service users. Furthermore, many studies included in the review involved small sample sizes and methodological weaknesses, which limit the validity, reliability and generalisability of their results.