Impact of uncertainty intolerance on clinical reasoning: A scoping review of the 21st-century literature.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical reasoning is currently extensively studied to find out how to make proper diagnoses. Literature indicates that intolerance of uncertainty (IU) may have a strong negative impact on clinical reasoning. We summarize the various consequences of IU on clinical reasoning. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using relevant keywords to scientific databases (i.e., Google Scholar, Medline, PsycINFO and PBSC) from September to November 2021. Complementary research included relevant articles and articles retrieved through Google Scholar's alert system. We included articles about healthcare professionals as defined by the French Public Health Code (As defined here: https://www.vie-publique.fr/fiches/37855-categories-de-professionnels-de-sante-code-se-la-sante-publique), and articles reporting on the impact of IU or uncertainty management on clinical reasoning. RESULTS: We retrieved 1853 articles, of which 8 were kept for final analysis considering our inclusion criteria. Two behaviour categories were affected by uncertainty intolerance: investigative and prescriptive behaviours. Regarding the investigation process, mismanagement of uncertainty appeared to lead to reasoning bias, potentially resulting in diagnostic errors. IU was associated with withholding information, more referrals to peers and less use of new medical interventions. Regarding prescription behaviours, IU among health professionals could lead to overprescribing unnecessary or dangerous tests. IU was also associated with more antibiotic prescriptions for conditions where antibiotics are to be used carefully. CONCLUSION: Few studies have yet addressed the impact of IU on clinical reasoning. IU's influence is primarily observed on investigative and prescribing behaviours. More studies are needed to fully understand the impact of IU on clinical reasoning itself, and not only on practical consequences.

Intolerance of Uncertainty and Attitudes towards Vaccination Impact Vaccinal Decision While Perceived Uncertainty Does Not.

The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated that intolerance of uncertainty (IU) can hinder problem-solving and lead to avoidance of ambiguous situations. Furthermore, people tend to lack confidence in decisions made in ambiguous contexts. We wanted to investigate the impact of IU on intentions to get vaccinated, to vaccinate one's children, and to recommend the vaccine in situations with varying degrees of perceived uncertainty. We first conducted a pretest to select six scenarios with different levels of perceived uncertainty. In the core study, 485 participants answered for each of the six scenarios whether they would get vaccinated, vaccinate their children (or imagine doing so, for individuals without children), and whether they would recommend the vaccine. They also completed the IUS-12 (Intolerance of Uncertainty scale) and the VAX (Vaccination Attitudes Examination). Results showed that perceived uncertainty did not influence our measures, but the IUS-12 and VAX predicted the difference in score between the most and least uncertain scenarios. An indirect effect of the IUS-12 on decision confidence through the VAX was found, but with no direct effect. We conclude that, even if future studies should refine these results, Public Policies should be more focused on factors such as IU and attitudes toward vaccination.

Reliability of diagnosis and clinical efficacy of visceral osteopathy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, the World Health Organization published benchmarks for training in osteopathy in which osteopathic visceral techniques are included. The purpose of this study was to identify and critically appraise the scientific literature concerning the reliability of diagnosis and the clinical efficacy of techniques used in visceral osteopathy. METHODS: Databases MEDLINE, OSTMED.DR, the Cochrane Library, Osteopathic Research Web, Google Scholar, Journal of American Osteopathic Association (JAOA) website, International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (IJOM) website, and the catalog of Académie d'ostéopathie de France website were searched through December 2017. Only inter-rater reliability studies including at least two raters or the intra-rater reliability studies including at least two assessments by the same rater were included. For efficacy studies, only randomized-controlled-trials (RCT) or crossover studies on unhealthy subjects (any condition, duration and outcome) were included. Risk of bias was determined using a modified version of the quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL) in reliability studies. For the efficacy studies, the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess their methodological design. Two authors performed data extraction and analysis. RESULTS: Eight reliability studies and six efficacy studies were included. The analysis of reliability studies shows that the diagnostic techniques used in visceral osteopathy are unreliable. Regarding efficacy studies, the least biased study shows no significant difference for the main outcome. The main risks of bias found in the included studies were due to the absence of blinding of the examiners, an unsuitable statistical method or an absence of primary study outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the systematic review lead us to conclude that well-conducted and sound evidence on the reliability and the efficacy of techniques in visceral osteopathy is absent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review is registered PROSPERO 12th of December 2016. Registration number is CRD4201605286 .

Reliability of Diagnosis and Clinical Efficacy of Cranial Osteopathy: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: In 2010, the World Health Organization released benchmarks for training in osteopathy in which they considered cranial osteopathy as an important osteopathic skill. However, the evidence supporting the reliability of diagnosis and the efficacy of treatment in this field appears scientifically weak and inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To identify and critically evaluate the scientific literature dealing with the reliability of diagnosis and the clinical efficacy of techniques and therapeutic strategies used in cranial osteopathy. METHODS: Relevant keywords were used to search the electronic databases MEDLINE, PEDro, OSTMED.DR, Cochrane Library, and in Google Scholar, Journal of American Osteopathy Association and International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine websites. Searches were conducted up to end June 2016 with no date restriction as to when the studies were completed. As a complementary approach we explored the bibliography of included articles and consulted available previous reviews dealing with this topic. STUDY SELECTION: Regarding diagnostic processes in cranial osteopathy, we analyzed studies that compared the results obtained by at least two examiners or by the same examiner on at least two occasions. For efficacy studies, only randomized-controlled-trials or crossover-studies were eligible. We excluded articles that were not in English or French, and for which the full-text version was not openly available. We also excluded studies with unsuitable study design, in which there was no clear indication of the use of techniques or therapeutic strategies concerning the cranial field, looked at combined treatments, used a non-human examiner and subjects or used healthy subjects for efficacy studies. There was no restriction regarding the type of disease. SEARCH RESULTS: In our electronic search we found 1280 references concerning reliability of diagnosis studies plus four references via our complementary strategy. Based on the title 18 articles were selected for analysis. Nine were retained after applying our exclusion criteria. Regarding efficacy, we extracted 556 references from the databases plus 14 references through our complementary strategy. Based on the title 46 articles were selected. Thirty two articles were not retained on the grounds of our exclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Risk of bias in reliability studies was assessed using a modified version of the quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability. The methodological quality of the efficacy studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Two screeners conducted these analyses. RESULTS: For reliability studies, our analysis leads us to conclude that the diagnostic procedures used in cranial osteopathy are unreliable in many ways. For efficacy studies, the Cochrane risk of bias tool we used shows that 2 studies had a high risk of bias, 9 were rated as having major doubt regarding risk of bias and 3 had a low risk of bias. In the 3 studies with a low risk of bias alternative interpretations of the results, such as a non-specific effect of treatment, were not considered. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate, consistently with those of previous reviews, that methodologically strong evidence on the reliability of diagnostic procedures and the efficacy of techniques and therapeutic strategies in cranial osteopathy is almost non-existent.