Vignette studies of medical choice and judgement to study caregivers' medical decision behaviour: systematic review

Bachmann, Lucas M.; Mühleisen, Andrea; Bock, Annekatrin; Riet, Gerben ter; Held, Ulrike; Kessels, Alfons G.H.

doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-50

Cited by 115 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Vignettes have proven their value in previous decision-making research. 20,21 Some methodological limitations need to be taken into account. Firstly, despite a good response rate, the responders were not fully representative of the Dutch population: the responders were older, more often male, more highly educated, and more often sharing a household.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinions of the Dutch public on palliative sedation: a mixed-methods approach

Kallen¹,

Raijmakers²,

Rietjens³

et al. 2013

Br J Gen Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opinions of the Dutch public on palliative sedation: a mixed-methods approach

Kallen¹,

Raijmakers²,

Rietjens³

et al. 2013

Br J Gen Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Witteman & Van den Bercken, 2007) vignettes were used to optimize methodological rigor (cf. Bachmann et al, 2008); this greater methodological rigor, however, comes at the cost of the ability to generalize our results to more realistic diagnostic situations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Deliberative versus Intuitive Psychodiagnostic Decision

Skvortsova¹,

Schulte‐Mecklenbeck²,

Jellema³

et al. 2016

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have demonstrated that in the mental health domain, experience does not always lead to better diagnostic decisions, suggesting that in clinical psychology experience-based intuition might actually not improve performance. The aim of the current study was to investigate differences in preferred reasoning styles of novice and experienced clinical psychologists as possible explanation of this surprising phenomenon. We investigated clinical and control decisions of novice (n = 20) and experienced (n = 20) clinical psychologists as well as age-matched controls (n = 20 and n = 20 respectively) by using vignettes and MouselabWeb matrices. We assessed their reasoning style preferences by using the Rational-Experiential Inventory (Pacini & Epstein, 1999). Results showed that experienced and novice clinical psychologists did not differ in diagnostic accuracy and that experienced psychologists had a higher preference for rational thinking than novices. We also found that in experienced psychologists a stronger preference for deliberation was associated with greater accuracy, and in novice psychologists a stronger preference for intuitive reasoning was associated with less accurate decisions. It might be that it is not a question of more experience but of deliberation about the task that could help clinicians perform more accurately.

show abstract

“…Also, though the PAR scores are up to date, the sign-outs may not be. Finally, although the use of vignettes followed by theoretical questions to predict actions has been validated in several applications, 20,21 it is not yet clear how these results translate into clinical practice. Future research is needed to investigate if PAR is helpful in actual clinical settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%