IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i4p539-557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in Medical Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • J. S. Blumenthal-Barby
  • Heather Krieger

Abstract

Background. The role of cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making is of growing interest. The purpose of this study was to determine whether studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on actual or hypothetical decisions and are conducted with populations that are representative of those who typically make the medical decision; to categorize the types of cognitive biases and heuristics found and whether they are found in patients or in medical personnel; and to critically review the studies based on standard methodological quality criteria. Method. Data sources were original, peer-reviewed, empirical studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making found in Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, and the CINAHL databases published in 1980–2013. Predefined exclusion criteria were used to identify 213 studies. During data extraction, information was collected on type of bias or heuristic studied, respondent population, decision type, study type (actual or hypothetical), study method, and study conclusion. Results. Of the 213 studies analyzed, 164 (77%) were based on hypothetical vignettes, and 175 (82%) were conducted with representative populations. Nineteen types of cognitive biases and heuristics were found. Only 34% of studies ( n = 73) investigated medical personnel, and 68% ( n = 145) confirmed the presence of a bias or heuristic. Each methodological quality criterion was satisfied by more than 50% of the studies, except for sample size and validated instruments/questions. Limitations are that existing terms were used to inform search terms, and study inclusion criteria focused strictly on decision making. Conclusions. Most of the studies on biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on hypothetical vignettes, raising concerns about applicability of these findings to actual decision making. Biases and heuristics have been underinvestigated in medical personnel compared with patients.

Suggested Citation

  • J. S. Blumenthal-Barby & Heather Krieger, 2015. "Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 539-557, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:4:p:539-557
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14547740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14547740
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14547740?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. Cheryl L L Carling & Doris Tove Kristoffersen & Victor M Montori & Jeph Herrin & Holger J Schünemann & Shaun Treweek & Elie A Akl & Andrew D Oxman, 2009. "The Effect of Alternative Summary Statistics for Communicating Risk Reduction on Decisions about Taking Statins: A Randomized Trial," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-10, August.
    2. Brown, Roger L. & Baumann, Linda J. & Helberg, Clay P. & Han, Youngshook & Fontana, Susan A. & Love, Richard R., 1996. "The simultaneous analysis of patient, physician and group practice influences on annual mammography performance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 315-324, August.
    3. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus, 1998. "An experimental test of question framing in health state utility assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 187-193, September.
    4. Oliver, Adam, 2004. "Testing the internal consistency of the standard gamble in 'success' and 'failure' frames," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(11), pages 2219-2229, June.
    5. Facione, Noreen C. & Facione, Peter A., 2006. "The cognitive structuring of patient delay in breast cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 3137-3149, December.
    6. G. Salkeld & M. Ryan & L. Short, 2000. "The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 267-270, April.
    7. Bornstein, Brian H. & Christine Emler, A. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 1999. "Rationality in medical treatment decisions: is there a sunk-cost effect?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 215-222, July.
    8. Dillard, Amanda J. & Fagerlin, Angela & Cin, Sonya Dal & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2010. "Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 45-52, July.
    9. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Reference Points and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 475-498, September.
    10. Hemmerich, Joshua A. & Elstein, Arthur S. & Schwarze, Margaret L. & Moliski, Elizabeth Ghini & Dale, William, 2012. "Risk as feelings in the effect of patient outcomes on physicians' future treatment decisions: A randomized trial and manipulation validation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 367-376.
    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. Tatiana Andia & César Mantilla & Paul Rodríguez-Lesmes & Leonel Criado & Juan Sebastián Gómez & Santiago Ortiz & Andrea Quintero & Ferley Rincón & Steffanny Romero, 2020. "Information and symptoms assessment in community pharmacies during the COVID-19 pandemic: An audit study in Colombia," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S2), pages 5-14, December.
    2. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Gigi Foster, 2018. "Towards a living theoretical spine for (behavioural) economics," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 2(1), pages 75-81, March.
    4. Carminati, Lara, 2020. "Behavioural Economics and Human Decision Making: Instances from the Health Care System," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(6), pages 659-664.
    5. Kovacs, Roxanne J. & Lagarde, Mylene & Cairns, John, 2020. "Overconfident health workers provide lower quality healthcare," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    6. Mehmet Eren Ahsen & Mehmet Ulvi Saygi Ayvaci & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2019. "When Algorithmic Predictions Use Human-Generated Data: A Bias-Aware Classification Algorithm for Breast Cancer Diagnosis," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 97-116, March.
    7. Andia, Tatiana & Mantilla, Cesar & Rodriguez-Lesmes, Paul & Criado, Leonel & Gomez, Juan Sebastian & Ortiz, Santiago & Quintero, Andrea & Rincón, Heiner & Romero, Steffanny, 2020. "Mentioning anosmia improves how community pharmacies handle phone call requests during the COVID-19 pandemic: An audit study in Colombia," SocArXiv s2z47, Center for Open Science.
    8. Takashi Watari & Yasuharu Tokuda & Yu Amano & Kazumichi Onigata & Hideyuki Kanda, 2022. "Cognitive Bias and Diagnostic Errors among Physicians in Japan: A Self-Reflection Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-11, April.
    9. Belardinelli, Paolo & Bellé, Nicola & Cantarelli, Paola, 2021. "The impact of bounded subadditivity on administrative behaviour among public and private workers," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110449, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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. Heather P. Lacey & Steven C. Lacey & Prerna Dayal & Caroline Forest & Dana Blasi, 2023. "Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 417-429, May.
    2. Unger-Saldaña, Karla & Infante-Castañeda, Claudia B., 2011. "Breast cancer delay: A grounded model of help-seeking behaviour," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1096-1104, April.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Nagpal, Anish & Lei, Jing & Khare, Adwait, 2015. "To Choose or to Reject: The Effect of Decision Frame on Food Customization Decisions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 422-435.
    5. Davood Bayat & Hadi Mohamadpour & Huihua Fang & Pengfei Xu & Frank Krueger, 2023. "The Impact of Order Effects on the Framing of Trust and Reciprocity Behaviors," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.
    6. Ahmad Barirani & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2017. "The Origins and Extent of Entrepreneurial Action-Orientedness: An Experimental Study," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-006/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Meier Stephan, 2005. "Does Framing Matter for Conditional Cooperation? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Michelle Miller & Maria Crotty, 2018. "Taste, choice and timing: Investigating resident and carer preferences for meals in aged care homes," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 116-124, March.
    9. Chen, Yenming J. & Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2017. "Non-differentiated green product positioning: Roles of uncertainty and rationality," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 248-260.
    10. Zeelenberg, M. & van Dijk, W.W. & Manstead, A.S.R., 1998. "Reconsidering the relation between regret and responsibility," Other publications TiSEM fa17bcac-aab0-4f37-8183-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Lisa Cameron & Manisha Shah, 2014. "Can Mistargeting Destroy Social Capital and Stimulate Crime? Evidence from a Cash Transfer Program in Indonesia," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 381-415.
    12. Jemimah Ride & Emily Lancsar, 2016. "Women’s Preferences for Treatment of Perinatal Depression and Anxiety: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    13. Madeleine T. King & Jane Hall & Emily Lancsar & Denzil Fiebig & Ishrat Hossain & Jordan Louviere & Helen K. Reddel & Christine R. Jenkins, 2007. "Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(7), pages 703-717, July.
    14. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    15. Di Guida, Sibilla & Marchiori, Davide & Erev, Ido, 2012. "Decisions among defaults and the effect of the option to do nothing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 790-793.
    16. Meliyanni Johar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Using repeated choice experiments to evaluate the impact of policy changes on cervical screening," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1845-1855, May.
    17. Shaul Shalvi, 2012. "Dishonestly increasing the likelihood of winning," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(3), pages 292-303, May.
    18. Rebekah Hall & Antonieta Medina-Lara & Willie Hamilton & Anne E. Spencer, 2022. "Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(3), pages 269-285, May.
    19. Kara Hanson & Barbara McPake & Pamela Nakamba & Luke Archard, 2005. "Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 687-701, July.
    20. S. Steenhaut & P. Van Kenhove, 2006. "The Emotional Experience of Guilt in Ethically Questionable Consumer Situations," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 06/381, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    21. Jensen, Jakob D. & King, Andy J. & Carcioppolo, Nick & Krakow, Melinda & Samadder, N. Jewel & Morgan, Susan, 2014. "Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50–75: A randomized controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 31-40.

    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:35:y:2015:i:4:p:539-557. 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.