Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review.

Gustavo Saposnik, Donald Redelmeier, Christian C Ruff, Philippe N Tobler
Author Information
  1. Gustavo Saposnik: Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland. gustavo.saposnik@econ.uzh.ch.
  2. Donald Redelmeier: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Canada.
  3. Christian C Ruff: Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.
  4. Philippe N Tobler: Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cognitive biases and personality traits (aversion to risk or ambiguity) may lead to diagnostic inaccuracies and medical errors resulting in mismanagement or inadequate utilization of resources. We conducted a systematic review with four objectives: 1) to identify the most common cognitive biases, 2) to evaluate the influence of cognitive biases on diagnostic accuracy or management errors, 3) to determine their impact on patient outcomes, and 4) to identify literature gaps.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles on cognitive biases from 1980 to May 2015. We included studies conducted in physicians that evaluated at least one cognitive factor using case-vignettes or real scenarios and reported an associated outcome written in English. Data quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Among 114 publications, 20 studies comprising 6810 physicians met the inclusion criteria. Nineteen cognitive biases were identified.
RESULTS: All studies found at least one cognitive bias or personality trait to affect physicians. Overconfidence, lower tolerance to risk, the anchoring effect, and information and availability biases were associated with diagnostic inaccuracies in 36.5 to 77 % of case-scenarios. Five out of seven (71.4 %) studies showed an association between cognitive biases and therapeutic or management errors. Of two (10 %) studies evaluating the impact of cognitive biases or personality traits on patient outcomes, only one showed that higher tolerance to ambiguity was associated with increased medical complications (9.7 % vs 6.5 %; p = .004). Most studies (60 %) targeted cognitive biases in diagnostic tasks, fewer focused on treatment or management (35 %) and on prognosis (10 %). Literature gaps include potentially relevant biases (e.g. aggregate bias, feedback sanction, hindsight bias) not investigated in the included studies. Moreover, only five (25 %) studies used clinical guidelines as the framework to determine diagnostic or treatment errors. Most studies (n = 12, 60 %) were classified as low quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Overconfidence, the anchoring effect, information and availability bias, and tolerance to risk may be associated with diagnostic inaccuracies or suboptimal management. More comprehensive studies are needed to determine the prevalence of cognitive biases and personality traits and their potential impact on physicians' decisions, medical errors, and patient outcomes.

Keywords

References

  1. Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):301-13 [PMID: 12926580]
  2. Eur J Intern Med. 2013 Sep;24(6):525-9 [PMID: 23566942]
  3. Med Decis Making. 2015 May;35(4):539-57 [PMID: 25145577]
  4. Science. 1976 Nov 12;194(4266):696-700 [PMID: 982034]
  5. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Nov 16;141(10):771-80 [PMID: 15545677]
  6. N Engl J Med. 2006 May 11;354(19):2024-33 [PMID: 16687715]
  7. Med Decis Making. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(4):532-9 [PMID: 18319507]
  8. Psychol Res. 2010 Nov;74(6):586-92 [PMID: 20354726]
  9. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Aug;102(8):1585-7 [PMID: 17686062]
  10. Med Decis Making. 1983;3(3):279-84 [PMID: 6645819]
  11. Radiol Technol. 2009 Sep-Oct;81(1):92-5 [PMID: 19738196]
  12. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Apr;27(4):413-9 [PMID: 22033742]
  13. J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Dec;26(12):1411-7 [PMID: 21792695]
  14. Neurosurgery. 2015 Feb;76(2):105-13; discussion 113-4 [PMID: 25255258]
  15. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Aug;24(8):523-31 [PMID: 26092165]
  16. Acad Med. 2011 Mar;86(3):307-13 [PMID: 21248608]
  17. CMAJ. 2014 Mar 18;186(5):325-6 [PMID: 24549128]
  18. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013 Aug;18(3):343-63 [PMID: 22618855]
  19. Br J Gen Pract. 1999 Jan;49(438):17-21 [PMID: 10622010]
  20. Fam Pract Manag. 2007 Feb;14(2):41-7 [PMID: 17330716]
  21. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Apr 01;14:45 [PMID: 24690082]
  22. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Apr;21(4):295-300 [PMID: 22389021]
  23. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2012 Dec;25(6):724-9 [PMID: 23128454]
  24. J Health Care Finance. 2012 Fall;39(1):39-50 [PMID: 23155743]
  25. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;211(6):692.e1-6 [PMID: 24907699]
  26. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2014 Feb;85(2):160-6 [PMID: 24597160]
  27. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Mar 6;156(5):340-9 [PMID: 22393129]
  28. JAMA. 1991 Nov 27;266(20):2847-51 [PMID: 1942452]
  29. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009 Dec;15(6):964-9 [PMID: 20367693]
  30. Front Psychol. 2015 Oct 29;6:1672 [PMID: 26579051]
  31. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Jul;21(7):535-57 [PMID: 22543420]
  32. Milbank Q. 1998;76(4):565-91, 510 [PMID: 9879303]
  33. JAMA. 2010 Sep 15;304(11):1198-203 [PMID: 20841533]
  34. Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Apr;57(4):323-328.e9 [PMID: 21227545]
  35. Acad Med. 2012 Feb;87(2):149-56 [PMID: 22189886]
  36. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006 Nov-Dec;19(6):627-32 [PMID: 17090796]
  37. J Hand Surg Am. 2011 Dec;36(12):1996-2001.e1-6 [PMID: 22123047]
  38. Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31 [PMID: 17835457]
  39. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):W65-94 [PMID: 19622512]
  40. BMC Fam Pract. 2012 Dec 26;13:127 [PMID: 23267547]
  41. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 May;16(5):325-34 [PMID: 11359552]
  42. Acad Emerg Med. 2005 Feb;12(2):142-6 [PMID: 15692135]
  43. JAMA. 1980 Mar 21;243(11):1156-9 [PMID: 7359667]
  44. Circulation. 2002 Feb 5;105(5):645-9 [PMID: 11827933]
  45. Arch Med Sci. 2012 Jul 4;8(3):569-74 [PMID: 22852017]
  46. Circulation. 2010 Apr 13;121(14 ):1664-82 [PMID: 20308619]
  47. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22 Suppl 2:ii21-ii27 [PMID: 23771902]
  48. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84(Pt 1):454-8 [PMID: 11604781]
  49. Eur J Emerg Med. 2013 Feb;20(1):33-8 [PMID: 22198159]
  50. Am J Med Qual. 2010 Jan-Feb;25(1):13-23 [PMID: 19801422]
  51. Neurology. 2013 Jul 30;81(5):448-55 [PMID: 23897872]
  52. Acad Med. 2003 Aug;78(8):775-80 [PMID: 12915363]
  53. Med Educ. 2005 Jan;39(1):98-106 [PMID: 15612906]
  54. Acad Med. 2012 Oct;87(10):1361-7 [PMID: 22914511]
  55. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Nov 25;173(21):1952-8 [PMID: 23979070]
  56. JAMA. 1995 Jan 25;273(4):302-5 [PMID: 7815657]
  57. Int J Integr Care. 2015 Mar 27;15:e008 [PMID: 26034467]
  58. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006 Sep;12(3):179-95 [PMID: 16953744]
  59. Acad Med. 2014 Jan;89(1):114-20 [PMID: 24280846]
  60. J Gen Intern Med. 2000 Mar;15(3):204-6 [PMID: 10718903]
  61. Med Educ Online. 2014 Mar 12;19:23646 [PMID: 24646439]
  62. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jun 24;173(12):1056-7 [PMID: 23689540]
  63. JAMA. 1995 Jul 5;274(1):29-34 [PMID: 7791255]
  64. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Sep;66(9):982-93 [PMID: 23683848]
  65. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2012 Mar;14(1):77-89 [PMID: 22577307]

MeSH Term

Clinical Decision-Making
Humans
Personality
Physicians
Thinking

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0biasescognitivestudiesdiagnosticerrorsassociatedbiaspersonalitytraitsmedicalmanagementCognitiveriskinaccuraciesreviewdetermineimpactpatientoutcomesphysiciansonetoleranceambiguitymayconductedsystematicidentifygapsrelevantincludedleastqualityOverconfidenceanchoringeffectinformationavailabilityshowed10 %60 %treatmentBACKGROUND:aversionleadresultingmismanagementinadequateutilizationresourcesfourobjectives:1common2evaluateinfluenceaccuracy34literatureMETHODS:searchedMEDLINECochraneLibrarydatabasesarticles1980May2015evaluatedfactorusingcase-vignettesrealscenariosreportedoutcomewrittenEnglishDataassessedNewcastle-OttawascaleAmong114publications20comprising6810metinclusioncriteriaNineteenidentifiedRESULTS:foundtraitaffectlower36577 %case-scenariosFiveseven714 %associationtherapeutictwoevaluatinghigherincreasedcomplications97 %vs65 %p = 004targetedtasksfewerfocused35 %prognosisLiteratureincludepotentiallyegaggregatefeedbacksanctionhindsightinvestigatedMoreoverfive25 %usedclinicalguidelinesframeworkn = 12classifiedlowCONCLUSIONS:suboptimalcomprehensiveneededprevalencepotentialphysicians'decisionsdecisions:Case-scenariosCognitionDecisionmakingPersonalityPhysiciansSystematic

Similar Articles

Cited By