Literature DB >> 18952948

Can cognitive biases during consumer health information searches be reduced to improve decision making?

Annie Y S Lau1, Enrico W Coiera.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test whether the anchoring and order cognitive biases experienced during search by consumers using information retrieval systems can be corrected to improve the accuracy of, and confidence in, answers to health-related questions.
DESIGN: A prospective study was conducted on 227 undergraduate students who used an online search engine developed by the authors to find health information and then answer six randomly assigned consumer health questions. The search engine was fitted with a baseline user interface and two modified interfaces specifically designed to debias anchoring or order effect. Each subject used all three user interfaces, answering two questions with each. MEASUREMENTS: Frequencies of correct answers pre- and post- search and confidence in answers were collected. Time taken to search and then answer a question, the number of searches conducted and the number of links accessed in a search session were also recorded. User preferences for each interface were measured. Chi-square analyses tested for the presence of biases with each user interface. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test checked for equality of distribution of the evidence analyzed for each user interface. The test for difference between proportions and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test were used when comparing interfaces.
RESULTS: Anchoring and order effects were present amongst subjects using the baseline search interface (anchoring: p < 0.001; order: p = 0.026). With use of the order debiasing interface, the initial order effect was no longer present (p = 0.34) but there was no significant improvement in decision accuracy (p = 0.23). While the anchoring effect persisted when using the anchor debiasing interface (p < 0.001), its use was associated with a 10.3% increase in subjects who had answered incorrectly pre-search, answering correctly post-search (p = 0.10). Subjects using either debiasing user interface conducted fewer searches and accessed more documents compared to baseline (p < 0.001). In addition, the majority of subjects preferred using a debiasing interface over baseline.
CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that (i) debiasing strategies can be integrated into the user interface of a search engine; (ii) information interpretation behaviors can be to some extent debiased; and that (iii) attempts to debias information searching by consumers can influence their ability to answer health-related questions accurately, their confidence in these answers, as well as the strategies used to conduct searches and retrieve information.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18952948      PMCID: PMC2605604          DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M2557

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  30 in total

1.  Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias.

Authors:  Pat Croskerry
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.451

2.  Cognitive forcing strategies in clinical decisionmaking.

Authors:  Pat Croskerry
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.721

3.  Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence.

Authors:  Ted J Kaptchuk
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-06-28

4.  Ubiquitous but unfinished: online information retrieval systems.

Authors:  William R Hersh
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Do physicians know when their diagnoses are correct? Implications for decision support and error reduction.

Authors:  Charles P Friedman; Guido G Gatti; Timothy M Franz; Gwendolyn C Murphy; Fredric M Wolf; Paul S Heckerling; Paul L Fine; Thomas M Miller; Arthur S Elstein
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  The effect of presentation order in clinical decision making.

Authors:  J P Cunnington; J M Turnbull; G Regehr; M Marriott; G R Norman
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  When debiasing backfires: accessible content and accessibility experiences in debiasing hindsight.

Authors:  Lawrence J Sanna; Norbert Schwarz; Shevaun L Stocker
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Debias the environment instead of the judge: an alternative approach to reducing error in diagnostic (and other) judgment.

Authors:  J Klayman; K Brown
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1993 Oct-Nov

9.  Do people experience cognitive biases while searching for information?

Authors:  Annie Y S Lau; Enrico W Coiera
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-06-28       Impact factor: 4.497

10.  Evidence-based patient choice and consumer health informatics in the Internet age.

Authors:  G Eysenbach; A R Jadad
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2001 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  8 in total

1.  The Unintended Consequences of Health Information Technology Revisited.

Authors:  E Coiera; J Ash; M Berg
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2016-11-10

2.  How online crowds influence the way individual consumers answer health questions: an online prospective study.

Authors:  A Y S Lau; T M Y Kwok; E Coiera
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  Family informatics.

Authors:  Enrico Coiera; Kathleen Yin; Roneel V Sharan; Saba Akbar; Satya Vedantam; Hao Xiong; Jenny Waldie; Annie Y S Lau
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 7.942

4.  Can the Standard Configuration of a Cardiac Monitor Lead to Medical Errors under a Stress Induction?

Authors:  Maja Dzisko; Anna Lewandowska; Beata Wudarska
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 3.847

5.  Technology, cognition and error.

Authors:  Enrico Coiera
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 7.035

6.  Does it matter whether physicians' recommendations are given early or late in the decision-making process? An experimental study among patients with schizophrenia.

Authors:  Johannes Hamann; Werner Kissling; Rosmarie Mendel
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  HealthRecSys: A semantic content-based recommender system to complement health videos.

Authors:  Carlos Luis Sanchez Bocanegra; Jose Luis Sevillano Ramos; Carlos Rizo; Anton Civit; Luis Fernandez-Luque
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 2.796

8.  Manipulating Google's Knowledge Graph Box to Counter Biased Information Processing During an Online Search on Vaccination: Application of a Technological Debiasing Strategy.

Authors:  Ramona Ludolph; Ahmed Allam; Peter J Schulz
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 5.428

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.