Effect of Availability Bias and Reflective Reasoning on Diagnostic Accuracy Among Internal Medicine Residents
Open accessAbstract
CONTEXT: Diagnostic errors have been associated with bias in clinical reasoning. Empirical evidence on the cognitive mechanisms underlying biases and effectiveness of educational strategies to counteract them is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether recent experience with clinical problems provokes availability bias (overestimation of the likelihood of a diagnosis based on the ease with which it comes to mind) resulting in diagnostic errors and whether reflection (structured reanalysis of the case findings) counteracts this bias. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Experimental study conducted in 2009 at the Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, with 18 first-year and 18 second-year internal medicine residents. Participants first evaluated diagnoses of 6 clinical cases (phase 1). Subsequently, they diagnosed 8 different cases through nonanalytical reasoning, 4 of which had findings similar to previously evaluated cases but different diagnoses (phase 2). These 4 cases were subsequently diagnosed again through reflective reasoning (phase 3). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean diagnostic accuracy scores (perfect score, 4.0) on cases solved with or without previous exposure to similar problems through nonanalytical (phase 2) or reflective (phase 3) reasoning and frequency that a potentially biased (ie, phase 1) diagnosis was given. RESULTS: There were no main effects, but there was a significant interaction effect between "years of training" and "recent experiences with similar problems." Results consistent with an availability bias occurred for the second-year residents, who scored lower on the cases similar to those previously encountered (1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.96) than on the other cases (2.19; 95% CI, 1.73-2.66; P =.03). This pattern was not seen among the first-year residents (2.03; 95% CI, 1.55-2.51 vs 1.42; 95% CI, 0.92-1.92; P =.046). Second-year residents provided the phase 1 diagnosis more frequently for phase 2 cases they had previously encountered than for those they had not (mean frequency per resident, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.93-1.96 vs 0.72; 95% CI, 0.28-1.17; P =.04). A significant main effect of reasoning mode was found: reflection improved the diagnoses of the similar cases compared with nonanalytical reasoning for the second-year residents (2.03; 95% CI, 1.49-2.57) and the first-year residents (2.31; 95% CI, 1.89-2.73; P =.006). CONCLUSION: When faced with cases similar to previous ones and using nonanalytic reasoning, second-year residents made errors consistent with the availability bias. Subsequent application of diagnostic reflection tended to counter this bias; it improved diagnostic accuracy in both first- and second-year residents.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The study included 6 cases that could feasibly be completed within a single study session while remaining comparable to standard practices in national licensing and objective structured clinical examinations.
“Our study included 6 cases that could feasibly be completed within a single study session while remaining comparable to standard practices in national licensing and objective structured clinical examinations to use a small, but broad sample of clinical cases.6,46,47,48,49”
From Large Language Model Influence on Diagnostic Reasoning: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Cites
A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 · Cited by 5,540 · see citing works
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137 · see citing works
The Importance of Cognitive Errors in Diagnosis and Strategies to Minimize Them
Croskerry, P. (2003) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003 · Cited by 1,675 · see citing works
Diagnostic error in internal medicine
Graber, M. L., Franklin, N., & Gordon, R. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.13.1493 · Cited by 1,549 · see citing works
Friedman, C. P., Gatti, G. G., Franz, T. M., Murphy, G. C., Wolf, F. M., Heckerling, P. S., Fine, P. L., Miller, T. M., & Elstein, A. S. (2005) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.30145.x · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review
Saposnik, G., Redelmeier, D., Ruff, C. C., & Tobler, P. N. (2016) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0377-1 · Cited by 1,001 · see citing works
Large Language Model Influence on Diagnostic Reasoning: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Goh, E., Gallo, R., Hom, J., Strong, E., Weng, Y., Kerman, H., Cool, J. A., Kanjee, Z., Parsons, A. S., Ahuja, N., et al. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.40969 · Cited by 724 · see citing works
Norman, G. R., Monteiro, S. D., Sherbino, J., Ilgen, J. S., Schmidt, H. G., & Mamede, S. (2017) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001421 · Cited by 594 · see citing works
Self-citationDual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: a systematic review
Lambe, K. A., O'Reilly, G., Kelly, B. D., & Curristan, S. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004417 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Berthet, V. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Does Machine Learning Automate Moral Hazard and Error?
Mullainathan, S., & Obermeyer, Z. (2017) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.p20171084 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Colbert, C. Y., Graham, L., West, C., White, B. A., Arroliga, A. C., Myers, J. D., Ogden, P. E., Archer, J., Mohammad, Z. T. A., & Clark, J. (2015) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.11.001 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Felmingham, C. M., Adler, N. R., Ge, Z., Morton, R. L., Janda, M., & Mar, V. J. (2021) · American Journal of Clinical Dermatology · doi:10.1007/s40257-020-00574-4 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Mental workload as a key factor in clinical decision making
Byrne, A. (2013) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-012-9360-5 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Towards evidence-based practice 2.0: leveraging artificial intelligence in healthcare
Nilsen, P., Sundemo, D., Heintz, F., Neher, M., Nygren, J., Svedberg, P., & Petersson, L. (2024) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2024.1368030 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
<i>Annals</i> Clinical Decision Making: Avoiding Cognitive Errors in Clinical Decision Making
Restrepo, D., Armstrong, K. A., & Metlay, J. P. (2020) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m19-3692 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Parsons, A. S., Wijesekera, T. P., Olson, A. P. J., Torre, D., Durning, S. J., & Daniel, M. (2025) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2024.2359963 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
A Primer on Cognitive Errors Illustrated Through the Lens of a Neurosurgical Practice
Florman, J. E., Almeder, L., & Trowbridge, R. (2020) · Journal of Maine Medical Center · doi:10.46804/2641-2225.1054
- Authors
- Mamede, S., van Gog, T., van den Berge, K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., van Saase, J. L. C. M., van Guldener, C., & Schmidt, H. G.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2010-09-15
- Volume
- 304
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1198
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2015769833
- Cited by
- 374
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 14.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Keywords
- availability bias, diagnostic errors, reflective thinking, clinical reasoning, cognitive biases, internal medicine residents, diagnostic accuracy, medical education, diagnostic certainty
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Diagnostic Errors, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Humans, Internal Medicine, Internship and Residency, Netherlands, Physical Examination, Observer Variation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review