| Title |
Cognitive bias in clinical practice – nurturing healthy skepticism among medical students
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s149558 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alysha Bhatti |
| Abstract |
Errors in clinical reasoning, known as cognitive biases, are implicated in a significant proportion of diagnostic errors. Despite this knowledge, little emphasis is currently placed on teaching cognitive psychology in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Understanding the origin of these biases and their impact on clinical decision making helps stimulate reflective practice. This article outlines some of the common types of cognitive biases encountered in the clinical setting as well as cognitive debiasing strategies. Medical educators should nurture healthy skepticism among medical students by raising awareness of cognitive biases and equipping them with robust tools to circumvent such biases. This will enable tomorrow's doctors to improve the quality of care delivered, thus optimizing patient outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 27% |
| San Marino | 1 | 9% |
| Ghana | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 91% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,811,567
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,197
of 344,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them