IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v26y2006i2p154-161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Supervision of Students May Protect Academic Physicians from Cognitive Bias: A Study of Decision Making and Multiple Treatment Alternatives in Medicine

Author

Listed:
  • Todd Eric Roswarski

    (Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN; Office of the Dean, Academic Affairs, Ivy Tech Community College, 3101 South Creasy Lane, Lafayette, IN 47905; troswars@ivytech.edu)

  • Michael D. Murray

    (Department of Pharmacy Practice, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN; Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN)

Abstract

Objective. To determine how professional characteristics and practices of physicians alter the selection of medical treatments involving multiple alternatives. Situations involving multiple alternatives can increase the difficulty of making a decision, resulting in more choice deferral than when fewer alternatives are available. Design, Setting, Participants. A survey and scenario were mailed to a random sample of 314 primary and emergency care physicians affiliated with the Indiana University Medical Center. Using a scenario involving treatment decisions for a patient with osteoarthritis, the effects of multiple treatment alternatives on decision making were explored. Other physician factors included experience, workload, fatigue, continuing education, and supervision. Main Outcome Measures. Physicians’ treatment decisions. Results. Physician response was 61% ( n = 192). In contrast to previous studies, physicians in the present study were equally likely to prescribe a new medication, regardless of whether they were deciding about 1 medication or between 2 similar medications (54.5% v. 56.0%, P = 0.841). However, physicians who supervise medical students were far less influenced by the cognitive bias associated with multiple choices than those who did not supervise medical students. Supervising physicians were more likely to defer making a decision when there was only 1 treatment option than when there were 2 (49.3% v. 37%, P = 0.143), whereas the opposite was true for nonsupervising physicians (33.3% v. 63%, P = 0.040). The number of hours spent supervising medical students and the number of years as a physician were also important factors in the decision-making process. Conclusions. Multiple treatment alternatives may result in a deferral of choice. However, this cognitive bias is attenuated by experience and supervision, thus enhancing decision making. Implicit and explicit learning gained through experience and the supervisory process appears to be a central mechanism by which the physicians are protected from this cognitive bias

Suggested Citation

  • Todd Eric Roswarski & Michael D. Murray, 2006. "Supervision of Students May Protect Academic Physicians from Cognitive Bias: A Study of Decision Making and Multiple Treatment Alternatives in Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(2), pages 154-161, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:2:p:154-161
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06286483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06286483
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06286483?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Besedes, Tibor & Deck, Cary & Sarangi, Sudipta & Shor, Mikhael, 2012. "Designing a sequential choice architecture to reduce choice overload," MPRA Paper 38173, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Tibor Besedeš & Cary Deck & Sudipta Sarangi & Mikhael Shor, 2012. "Age Effects and Heuristics in Decision Making," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(2), pages 580-595, May.

    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:26:y:2006:i:2:p:154-161. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.