BackgroundDiagnostic errors have often been attributed to biases in physicians’ reasoning. Interventions to ‘immunise’ physicians against bias have focused on improving reasoning processes and have largely failed.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of increasing physicians’ relevant knowledge on their susceptibility to availability bias.Design, settings and participantsThree-phase multicentre randomised experiment with second-year internal medicine residents from eight teaching hospitals in Brazil.InterventionsImmunisation: Physicians diagnosed one of two sets of vignettes (either diseases associated with chronic diarrhoea or with jaundice) and compared/contrasted alternative diagnoses with feedback. Biasing phase (1 week later): Physicians were biased towards either inflammatory bowel disease or viral hepatitis. Diagnostic performance test: All physicians diagnosed three vignettes resembling inflammatory bowel disease, three resembling hepatitis (however, all with different diagnoses). Physicians who increased their knowledge of either chronic diarrhoea or jaundice 1 week earlier were expected to resist the bias attempt.Main outcome measurementsDiagnostic accuracy, measured by test score (range 0–1), computed for subjected-to-bias and not-subjected-to-bias vignettes diagnosed by immunised and not-immunised physicians.ResultsNinety-one residents participated in the experiment. Diagnostic accuracy differed on subjected-to-bias vignettes, with immunised physicians performing better than non-immunised physicians (0.40 vs 0.24; difference in accuracy 0.16 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.27); p=0.004), but not on not-subjected-to-bias vignettes (0.36 vs 0.41; difference −0.05 (95% CI −0.17 to 0.08); p=0.45). Bias only hampered non-immunised physicians, who performed worse on subjected-to-bias than not-subjected-to-bias vignettes (difference −0.17 (95% CI −0.28 to −0.05); p=0.005); immunised physicians’ accuracy did not differ (p=0.56).ConclusionsAn intervention directed at increasing knowledge of clinical findings that discriminate between similar-looking diseases decreased physicians’ susceptibility to availability bias, reducing diagnostic errors, in a simulated setting. Future research needs to examine the degree to which the intervention benefits other disease clusters and performance in clinical practice.Trial registration number68745917.1.1001.0068.
Context Reflection in practice is assumed to enhance interest in knowing more about a topic, increasing engagement in learning and learning outcomes. However, this claim lacks empirical evidence, particularly in medical education. The authors investigated the effects of deliberate reflection upon clinical cases on medical students’ engagement in a learning activity and learning outcomes. Methods A three‐task (diagnostic task; learning activity; test) experiment was conducted in August 2017. Seventy‐two fourth‐year students from UNIFENAS‐BH Medical School, Brazil, diagnosed two clinical cases with jaundice as the chief complaint, either by following a deliberate reflection procedure or making differential diagnosis. Subsequently, all participants received the same study material on the diagnosis of jaundice. Finally, they took a recall test on the study material. Outcome measurements were study time and test scores. Results There was a significant effect of experimental condition on students’ engagement in the learning activity and on learning outcomes. Students who deliberately reflected upon the cases invested more time in studying the material than those who made a differential diagnosis (respectively, mean = 254.97, standard deviation = 115.45 versus mean = 194.96, standard deviation = 111.68; p = 0.02; d = 0.53). Deliberate reflection was also related to higher scores in the test relative to differential diagnosis (respectively, mean = 22.08, standard deviation = 14.94 versus mean = 15.75, standard deviation = 9.24; p = 0.03; d = 0.51). Medium effect sizes (Cohen's d) were observed in both measurements. Conclusions Relative to making differential diagnosis, deliberate reflection while diagnosing cases fostered medical students’ engagement in learning and increased learning outcomes. Teachers can employ this relatively easy procedure, possibly both with simulated and real scenarios, to motivate their students and help them expand their knowledge, an important requirement for their professional development.
Relative to providing alternative diagnoses while solving cases, structured reflection increased medical students' interest and may therefore be a useful tool for teachers concerned with enhancing students' motivation for learning. Surprisingly, easy cases promoted higher situational interest despite the higher awareness of knowledge gaps on difficult cases. This suggests the potential for case difficulty to inhibit students' interest in learning, a possibility that demands further investigation.
Introduction Previous research suggests that, relative to generating a differential diagnosis, deliberate reflection during practice with clinical cases fosters learning from a subsequently studied scientific text and promotes interest in the subject matter. The present experiment aimed to replicate these findings and to examine whether motivational or cognitive mechanisms, or both, underlie the positive effects of reflection. Methods A total of 101 5th‐year medical students participated in an experiment containing four phases: Students (a) diagnosed two clinical cases of jaundice‐related diseases either through deliberate reflection or differential diagnosis; (b) reported their situational interest and awareness of knowledge gaps; (c) studied a text about jaundice, either under free or restricted time; and (d) recalled the text. Outcome measures were text‐recall, situational interest and awareness of knowledge gaps. Results A main effect of diagnostic approach on recall of the text was found, with the reflection group recalling more studied material than the differential diagnosis group (means: 72.56 vs 58.80; P = .01). No interaction between diagnostic approach and study time (free or restricted) emerged, nor was there a main effect of the latter. Relative to the differential diagnosis group, students who reflected upon the cases scored significantly higher on both situational interest (means: 4.45 vs 3.99, P < .001) and awareness of knowledge gaps (means: 4.13 vs 3.85, P < .01). Discussion Relative to generating differential diagnoses, reflection upon clinical cases increased learning outcomes on a subsequent study task, an effect that was independent of study time, suggesting that cognitive mechanisms underlie this effect, rather than increases in motivation to study. However, higher scores on situational interest and awareness of knowledge gaps and a tendency towards larger gains when time was free suggest that higher motivation may also contribute to learning from reflection.
How can clinical teachers bridge the gap between clinical reasoning research and the real world of their practice? Ribeiro and Moura explore learning opportunities tailored to student characteristics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.