Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A cognitive forcing tool to mitigate cognitive bias – a randomised control trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A cognitive forcing tool to mitigate cognitive bias – a randomised control trial
Do you wish to request the book?
A cognitive forcing tool to mitigate cognitive bias – a randomised control trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A cognitive forcing tool to mitigate cognitive bias – a randomised control trial
2019
Overview
Background
Cognitive bias is an important source of diagnostic error yet is a challenging area to understand and teach. Our aim was to determine whether a cognitive forcing tool can reduce the rates of error in clinical decision making. A secondary objective was to understand the process by which this effect might occur.
Methods
We hypothesised that using a cognitive forcing tool would reduce diagnostic error rates. To test this hypothesis, a novel online case-based approach was used to conduct a single blinded randomized clinical trial conducted from January 2017 to September 2018. In addition, a qualitative series of “think aloud” interviews were conducted with 20 doctors from a UK teaching hospital in 2018. The primary outcome was the diagnostic error rate when solving bias inducing clinical vignettes. A volunteer sample of medical professionals from across the UK, Republic of Ireland and North America. They ranged in seniority from medical student to Attending Physician.
Results
Seventy six participants were included in the study. The data showed doctors of all grades routinely made errors related to cognitive bias. There was no difference in error rates between groups (mean 2.8 cases correct in intervention vs 3.1 in control group, 95% CI -0.94 – 0.45
P
= 0.49). The qualitative protocol revealed that the cognitive forcing strategy was well received and a produced a subjectively positive impact on doctors’ accuracy and thoughtfulness in clinical cases.
Conclusions
The quantitative data failed to show an improvement in accuracy despite a positive qualitative experience. There is insufficient evidence to recommend this tool in clinical practice, however the qualitative data suggests such an approach has some merit and face validity to users.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
Subject
/ Adult
/ Approaches to teaching and learning
/ Attitude of Health Personnel
/ Beliefs, opinions and attitudes
/ Bias
/ Coding
/ Control
/ Design
/ Diagnostic Errors - prevention & control
/ Evidence
/ Humans
/ Medical Staff, Hospital - education
/ Medical Staff, Hospital - psychology
/ Medicine
/ Methods
/ Teachers
/ Teaching
/ Theory of Medicine/Bioethics
/ Thinking
