IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i4p451-462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collective Intelligence Increases Diagnostic Accuracy in a General Practice Setting

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew D. Blanchard

    (The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia)

  • Stefan M. Herzog

    (Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany)

  • Juliane E. Kämmer

    (Department of Social and Communication Psychology, Institute for Psychology, University of Goettingen, Germany
    Department of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland)

  • Nikolas Zöller

    (Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany)

  • Olga Kostopoulou

    (Institute for Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, UK)

  • Ralf H. J. M. Kurvers

    (Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

Background General practitioners (GPs) work in an ill-defined environment where diagnostic errors are prevalent. Previous research indicates that aggregating independent diagnoses can improve diagnostic accuracy in a range of settings. We examined whether aggregating independent diagnoses can also improve diagnostic accuracy for GP decision making. In addition, we investigated the potential benefit of such an approach in combination with a decision support system (DSS). Methods We simulated virtual groups using data sets from 2 previously published studies. In study 1, 260 GPs independently diagnosed 9 patient cases in a vignette-based study. In study 2, 30 GPs independently diagnosed 12 patient actors in a patient-facing study. In both data sets, GPs provided diagnoses in a control condition and/or DSS condition(s). Each GP’s diagnosis, confidence rating, and years of experience were entered into a computer simulation. Virtual groups of varying sizes (range: 3–9) were created, and different collective intelligence rules (plurality, confidence, and seniority) were applied to determine each group’s final diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy was used as the performance measure. Results Aggregating independent diagnoses by weighing them equally (i.e., the plurality rule) substantially outperformed average individual accuracy, and this effect increased with increasing group size. Selecting diagnoses based on confidence only led to marginal improvements, while selecting based on seniority reduced accuracy. Combining the plurality rule with a DSS further boosted performance. Discussion Combining independent diagnoses may substantially improve a GP’s diagnostic accuracy and subsequent patient outcomes. This approach did, however, not improve accuracy in all patient cases. Therefore, future work should focus on uncovering the conditions under which collective intelligence is most beneficial in general practice. Highlights We examined whether aggregating independent diagnoses of GPs can improve diagnostic accuracy. Using data sets of 2 previously published studies, we composed virtual groups of GPs and combined their independent diagnoses using 3 collective intelligence rules (plurality, confidence, and seniority). Aggregating independent diagnoses by weighing them equally substantially outperformed average individual GP accuracy, and this effect increased with increasing group size. Combining independent diagnoses may substantially improve GP’s diagnostic accuracy and subsequent patient outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew D. Blanchard & Stefan M. Herzog & Juliane E. Kämmer & Nikolas Zöller & Olga Kostopoulou & Ralf H. J. M. Kurvers, 2024. "Collective Intelligence Increases Diagnostic Accuracy in a General Practice Setting," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(4), pages 451-462, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:4:p:451-462
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241241001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241241001
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241241001?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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:5:p:408-418 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Olga Kostopoulou & Jurriaan Oudhoff & Radhika Nath & Brendan C. Delaney & Craig W. Munro & Clare Harries & Roger Holder, 2008. "Predictors of Diagnostic Accuracy and Safe Management in Difficult Diagnostic Problems in Family Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 668-680, September.
    3. Juliane E. Kämmer & Wolf E. Hautz & Stefan M. Herzog & Olga Kunina-Habenicht & Ralf H. J. M. Kurvers, 2017. "The Potential of Collective Intelligence in Emergency Medicine: Pooling Medical Students’ Independent Decisions Improves Diagnostic Performance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 715-724, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Olga Kostopoulou & Christos Mousoulis & Brendan Delaney, 2009. "Information search and information distortion in the diagnosis of an ambiguous presentation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 408-418, August.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:6:p:572-585 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:5:p:408-418 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Marieke de Vries & Cilia L. M. Witteman & Rob W. Holland & Ap Dijksterhuis, 2010. "The Unconscious Thought Effect in Clinical Decision Making: An Example in Diagnosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5), pages 578-581, September.
    5. Elaine C. Khoong & Sarah S. Nouri & Delphine S. Tuot & Shantanu Nundy & Valy Fontil & Urmimala Sarkar, 2022. "Comparison of Diagnostic Recommendations from Individual Physicians versus the Collective Intelligence of Multiple Physicians in Ambulatory Cases Referred for Specialist Consultation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 293-302, April.
    6. Nicholas Riches & Maria Panagioti & Rahul Alam & Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi & Stephen Campbell & Aneez Esmail & Peter Bower, 2016. "The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, March.
    7. Martine Nurek & Olga Kostopoulou & York Hagmayer, 2014. "Predecisional information distortion in physicians' diagnostic judgments: Strengthening a leading hypothesis or weakening its competitor?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(6), pages 572-585, November.

    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:44:y:2024:i:4:p:451-462. 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.