IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i2p178-185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of an Online Evidence System on Confidence in Decision Making in a Controlled Setting

Author

Listed:
  • Johanna I. Westbrook

    (Centre for Health Informatics, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia, j.westbrook@unsw.edu.au)

  • A. Sophie Gosling

    (Centre for Health Informatics, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia)

  • Enrico W. Coiera

    (Centre for Health Informatics, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia)

Abstract

Objective . To examine the impact of online evidence retrieval on clinicians’ decision-making confidence and to determine if this differs for experienced doctors and nurses. Methods . A sample of 44 doctors and 31 clinical nurse consultants (CNCs) answered 8 clinical scenarios (600 scenario answers) before and after the use of online evidence resources. Clinicians rated their confidence in scenario answers and in the evidence they found using the information system. Results . Prior to using online evidence, 37% of doctors and 18% of CNCs answered the scenarios correctly. These clinicians were more confident (56% very confident or confident) in their answers than those with incorrect (34%) answers. Doctors with incorrect answers prior to searching rated their confidence significantly higher than did nurses who were incorrect. After searching, both groups answered 50% of scenarios correctly. Clinicians with correct answers had greater confidence in the evidence found compared to those with incorrect answers. Doctors were more confident in evidence found confirming an initially correct answer than were nurses. More than 50% of clinicians who persisted with an incorrect answer after searching reported that they were confident or very confident in the evidence found. Clinicians who did not know scenario answers before searching placed equal confidence in evidence that led them to a correct or incorrect answer. Conclusions . The information obtained from an online evidence system influenced clinicians’ confidence in their answers to the clinical scenarios. The relationship between confidence in answers and correctness is complex. Both existing knowledge and professional role were mediating factors. The finding that many clinicians placed confidence in information that led them to incorrect answers warrants further investigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Johanna I. Westbrook & A. Sophie Gosling & Enrico W. Coiera, 2005. "The Impact of an Online Evidence System on Confidence in Decision Making in a Controlled Setting," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(2), pages 178-185, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:2:p:178-185
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05275155
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05275155
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X05275155?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Hersh & Jeffrey Pentecost & David Hickam, 1996. "A task‐oriented approach to information retrieval evaluation," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 47(1), pages 50-56, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pierre Pluye & Roland Grad & Carol Repchinsky & Barbara Jovaisas & Janique Johnson-Lafleur & Marie-Eve Carrier & Vera Granikov & Barbara Farrell & Charo Rodriguez & Gillian Bartlett & Carmen Loiselle , 2013. "Four levels of outcomes of information-seeking: A mixed methods study in primary health care," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 108-125, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anton van der Vegt & Guido Zuccon & Bevan Koopman, 2021. "Do better search engines really equate to better clinical decisions? If not, why not?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(2), pages 141-155, February.
    2. Pertti Vakkari & Michael Völske & Martin Potthast & Matthias Hagen & Benno Stein, 2021. "Predicting essay quality from search and writing behavior," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(7), pages 839-852, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:2:p:178-185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.