Debiasing and Educational Interventions in Medical Diagnosis: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of cognitive bias and its contribution to diagnostic errors has been documented in recent research. Debiasing interventions or educational initiatives are key in reducing the effects and prevalence of cognitive biases, contributing to the prevention of diagnostic errors. The objectives of this review were to 1) characterize common debiasing strategies implemented to reduce diagnosis-related cognitive biases, 2) report the cognitive biases targeted, and 3) determine the effectiveness of these interventions on diagnostic accuracy. Methods: Searches were conducted on April 25, 2022, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, and PsycInfo. Studies were included if they presented a debiasing intervention that aimed to improve diagnostic accuracy. The Rayyan review software was used for screening. Quality assessments were conducted using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. Extraction, quality assessment and analysis were recorded in Excel. Results: Searches resulted in 2232 studies. 17 studies were included in the final analysis. Three major debiasing interventions were identified: tool use, education of biases, and education of debiasing strategies. All intervention types reported mixed results. Common biases targeted include confirmation, availability, and search satisfying bias. Conclusion: While all three major debiasing interventions identified demonstrate some effectiveness in improving diagnostic accuracy, included studies reported mixed results when implemented. Furthermore, no studies examined decision-making in a clinical setting, and no studies reported long-term follow-up. Future research should look to identify why some interventions demonstrate low effectiveness, the conditions which enable high effectiveness, and effectiveness in environments beyond vignettes and among attending physicians.

‘This time is different’: physician knowledge in the age of artificial intelligence

“…Mamede et al ’s study aligns with other investigations which find that steering the brain toward the analytical mode has limited prospects for improving diagnosis 2–5. Vignette studies lack ecological validity (eg, text cases cannot capture the context of a patient encounter),6 but their design allows for the interrogation of concepts that inform medical education based on sound logic but limited evidence.…”

Through a Tainted Lens: A Qualitatve Study of Medical Learners’ Thinking About Patient ‘Deservingness’ of Health Advocacy

“…Unfortunately, this awareness of, and discomfort with, self-identified bias may not necessarily lead to better advocacy actions by the learner. While Sukhera et al identified a promising acceptability among providers to address their own biases about their patients [28], it can be extremely difficult for individuals to identify and address biases [29][30][31][32]. By definition, our own biases are always, to some extent, unknown to us [30].…”

Ten misconceptions regarding decision-making in critical care

“…Despite strategies for teaching and employing cognitive debiasing techniques, debate has existed about the extent to which such approaches are effective[ 45 ]. Several recent systematic and scoping reviews of debiasing interventions show promise for improvement of diagnostic accuracy, but the results of studies are heterogeneous[ 46 - 48 ]. Importantly, none of the studies examined decision-making in a clinical setting, and no studies reported long-term follow-up.…”