↓ Skip to main content

Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Quality & Safety, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: a systematic review
Published in
BMJ Quality & Safety, February 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004417
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn Ann Lambe, Gary O'Reilly, Brendan D Kelly, Sarah Curristan

Abstract

Diagnostic error incurs enormous human and economic costs. The dual-process model reasoning provides a framework for understanding the diagnostic process and attributes certain errors to faulty cognitive shortcuts (heuristics). The literature contains many suggestions to counteract these and to enhance analytical and non-analytical modes of reasoning. To identify, describe and appraise studies that have empirically investigated interventions to enhance analytical and non-analytical reasoning among medical trainees and doctors, and to assess their effectiveness. Systematic searches of five databases were carried out (Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, Education Resource Information Centre (ERIC) and Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials), supplemented with searches of bibliographies and relevant journals. Included studies evaluated an intervention to enhance analytical and/or non-analytical reasoning among medical trainees or doctors. Twenty-eight studies were included under five categories: educational interventions, checklists, cognitive forcing strategies, guided reflection, instructions at test and other interventions. While many of the studies found some effect of interventions, guided reflection interventions emerged as the most consistently successful across five studies, and cognitive forcing strategies improved accuracy and confidence judgements. Significant heterogeneity of measurement approaches was observed, and existing studies are largely limited to early-career doctors. Results to date are promising and this relatively young field is now close to a point where these kinds of cognitive interventions can be recommended to educators. Further research with refined methodology and more diverse samples is required before firm recommendations may be made for medical education and policy; however, these results suggest that such interventions hold promise, with much current enthusiasm for new research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 143 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 16%
Researcher 19 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 12%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Other 45 31%
Unknown 16 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 48%
Psychology 22 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 23 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 23 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,188,550
of 12,467,785 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#645
of 1,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,442
of 336,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#20
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,467,785 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 336,362 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.