Cited by 374Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Effect of Availability Bias and Reflective Reasoning on Diagnostic Accuracy Among Internal Medicine Residents

Open access
Mamede, Sílvia, van Gog, Tamara, van den Berge, Kees, Rikers, Remy M. J. P., van Saase, Jan L. C. M., van Guldener, Coen, Schmidt, Henk G.·2010·JAMA

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2010.1276

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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
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