Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Interventions to Mitigate Cognitive Biases in the Decision Making of Eye Care Professionals: A Systematic Review.
Shlonsky, Aron; Featherston, Rebecca; Galvin, Karyn L; Vogel, Adam P; Granger, Catherine L; Lewis, Courtney; Luong, My-Linh; Downie, Laura E.
Afiliação
  • Shlonsky A; Department of Social Work, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
  • Featherston R; Department of Social Work, Monash University, Caufield, Victoria, Australia.
  • Galvin KL; Department of Social Work, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
  • Vogel AP; Department of Social Work, Monash University, Caufield, Victoria, Australia.
  • Granger CL; Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
  • Lewis C; Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
  • Luong ML; Centre for Neuroscience of Speech, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
  • Downie LE; Redenlab, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Optom Vis Sci ; 96(11): 818-824, 2019 11.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31664015
ABSTRACT

SIGNIFICANCE:

Cognitive biases, systematic errors in thinking that impact a person's choices and judgments, can influence decision making at various points during patient care provision. These biases can potentially result in misdiagnoses, delayed clinical care, and/or patient mismanagement. A range of interventions exists to mitigate cognitive biases. There is a need to understand the relative efficacy of these interventions within the context of eye care practice.

PURPOSE:

The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the evidence relating to interventions for mitigating cognitive biases associated with clinical decision making by eye care professionals. DATA SOURCES Electronic databases (including Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO) were searched from inception to October 2017 for studies investigating interventions intended to mitigate cognitive biases in the clinical decision making of eye care professionals. This review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA To ensure inclusion of all relevant literature, a wide range of study designs was eligible for inclusion, such as randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, interrupted time series and repeated measures, controlled before-after studies, and qualitative studies that were a component of any of these quantitative study designs. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

METHODS:

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles in duplicate, applying a priori eligibility criteria.

RESULTS:

After screening 2759 nonduplicate records, including full-text screening of 201 articles, no relevant studies were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF

FINDINGS:

Given that cognitive biases can significantly impact the accuracy of clinical decision making and thus can have major effects on clinical care and patient health outcomes, the lack of studies identified in this systematic review indicates a critical need for research within the area of cognitive bias mitigation for decision making within eye care practice.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Viés / Pessoal de Saúde / Cognição / Tomada de Decisões / Optometristas Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Viés / Pessoal de Saúde / Cognição / Tomada de Decisões / Optometristas Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article