| Title |
Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Health Sciences Education, August 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10459-009-9182-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pat Croskerry |
| Abstract |
Both systemic and individual factors contribute to missed or delayed diagnoses. Among the multiple factors that impact clinical performance of the individual, the caliber of cognition is perhaps the most relevant and deserves our attention and understanding. In the last few decades, cognitive psychologists have gained substantial insights into the processes that underlie cognition, and a new, universal model of reasoning and decision making has emerged, Dual Process Theory. The theory has immediate application to medical decision making and provides an overall schema for understanding the variety of theoretical approaches that have been taken in the past. The model has important practical applications for decision making across the multiple domains of healthcare, and may be used as a template for teaching decision theory, as well as a platform for future research. Importantly, specific operating characteristics of the model explain how diagnostic failure occurs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| Japan | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 579 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | <1% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Mexico | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 556 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 83 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 57 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 56 | 10% |
| Researcher | 52 | 9% |
| Other | 48 | 8% |
| Other | 189 | 33% |
| Unknown | 94 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 244 | 42% |
| Psychology | 73 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 55 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 25 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 2% |
| Other | 56 | 10% |
| Unknown | 115 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 03 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,407,471
of 23,510,717 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#27
of 867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,384
of 113,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,510,717 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 113,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.