Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundCognitive 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAll 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.ConclusionsOverconfidence, 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0377-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Review of Pre-Intervention Prognostic Scores for Early Prognostication and Patient Selection in Endovascular Management of Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke

“…1) to arrive at a final decision can be highly variable and lead to inter-physician variability and heterogeneity in decision-making [11]. While the degree of inter-physician variability for ET patient selection has not been studied, the existence of such variability is supported by Saposnik et al[11, 12] who found superior predictive accuracy and precision of the iSCORE over clinical judgement by stroke physicians.…”

“…1) to arrive at a final decision can be highly variable and lead to inter-physician variability and heterogeneity in decision-making [11]. While the degree of inter-physician variability for ET patient selection has not been studied, the existence of such variability is supported by Saposnik et al[11, 12] who found superior predictive accuracy and precision of the iSCORE over clinical judgement by stroke physicians. Prognostic scores that combine clinical and/or radiographic variables that are available to the clinician prior to ET (pre-intervention scores) have been validated across a wide range of LVOS populations and appear to have moderate prognostic accuracy for good clinical outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0–2 at 3 months.…”

A foreign older diabetic woman with an acute myocardial infarction: when cognitive biases in clinical decision-making become especially important

“…From a psychological point of view, cognitive biases may affect clinical reasoning processes which may lead to errors in the diagnosis, management and treatment of medical conditions and can be associated with poorer outcomes such as medication non-compliance, overuse, patients’ dissatisfaction, medical complaints, increased length of stay, increased costs and ultimately unnecessary deaths 8. Several factors can increase the likelihood of cognitive biases such as person (eg, cognitive loading, fatigue), patient (eg, complex patient presentation, number of comorbidities) and system factors (eg, poorly accessible IT, poor teamwork/communication) 8–12…”

Futility and appropriateness: challenging words, important concepts

“…They fall into three categories as set out in table 1. Most of the factors listed were readily self-identified during our consultant interviews except for ‘cognitive biases and personality traits’ 25. However, reflective discussion was revealing and often resulted in clinicians’ surprise at his or her own biases.…”