This systematic review synthesized evidence supporting interventions aimed at mitigating cognitive bias associated with the decision-making of social work professionals.
Methods:
A systematic search was conducted within 10 social services and health-care databases. Review authors independently screened studies in duplicate against prespecified inclusion criteria, and two review authors undertook data extraction and quality assessment.
Results:
Four relevant studies were identified. Because these studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analyses, results are reported narratively. Three studies focused on diagnostic decisions within mental health and one considered family reunification decisions. Two strategies were reportedly effective in mitigating error: a nomogram tool and a specially designed online training course. One study assessing a consider-the-opposite approach reported no effect on decision outcomes.
Conclusions:
Cognitive bias can impact the accuracy of clinical reasoning. This review highlights the need for research into cognitive bias mitigation within the context of social work practice decision-making.
AndersonJ. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Worth.
2.
BairdC.HealyT.JohnsonK.BogieA.DankertE. W.ScharenbrochC. (2013). A comparison of risk assessment instruments in juvenile justice(No. 244477). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
3.
BairdC.WagnerD.HealyT.JohnsonK. (1999). Risk assessment in child protective services: Consensus and actuarial model reliability. Child Welfare, 78, 723.
4.
BarberJ. G.ShlonskyA.BlackT.GoodmanD.TrocméN. (2008). Reliability and predictive validity of a consensus-based risk assessment tool. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2, 173−195.
5.
Blumenthal-BarbyJ. S.KriegerH. (2015). Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: A critical review using a systematic search strategy. Medical Decision Making, 35, 539−557.
6.
BornsteinB. H.EmlerA. C. (2001). Rationality in medical decision making: A review of the literature on doctors decision-making biases. Journal Of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, 7, 97−107. doi:10.1046/j.13652753.2001.00284.x
CroskerryP. (2002). Achieving quality in clinical decision making: Cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9, 1184−1204.
11.
CroskerryP.NimmoG. R. (2011). Better clinical decision making and reducing diagnostic error. The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 41, 155−162. doi:10.4997/JRCPE.2011.208
12.
CroskerryP.SinghalG.MamedeS. (2013a). Cognitive debiasing 1: Origins of bias and theory of debiasing. BMJ Quality & Safety, 10, 58.
13.
CroskerryP.SinghalG.MamedeS. (2013b). Cognitive debiasing 2: Impediments to and strategies for change. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22, 65−72.
14.
DawesR. M.FaustD.MeehlP. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674.
15.
FischoffB. (1981). Debiasing. In KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.), Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 422–444). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16.
GalinskyA. D.MoskowitzG. B. (2000). Counterfactuals as behavioral primes: Priming the simulation heuristic and consideration of alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 384−409.
17.
GambrillE. (1997). Social work practice: A critical thinkers guide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
GambrillE. (2012). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
19.
GambrillE.ShlonskyA. (2000). Risk assessment in context. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 813–837.
20.
GigerenzerG. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. London, England: Penguin.
21.
GraberM. L.KissamS.PayneV. L.MeyerA. N.SorensenA.LenfesteyN.…SinghH. (2012). Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: A narrative review. BMJ Quality & Safety, 7, 535.
22.
GroveW. M.MeehlP. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293–323.
23.
HigginsJ. P.AltmanD. G.GøtzscheP. C.JüniP.MoherD.OxmanA. D.…SterneJ. A. (2011). The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. British Medical Journal, 343, d5928.
24.
JenkinsM. M. (2012). Cognitive de-biasing and the assessment of pediatric bipolar disorder(PhD dissertation). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
25.
JenkinsM. M.YoungstromE. A. (2016). A randomized controlled trial of cognitive debiasing improves assessment and treatment selection for pediatric bipolar disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84, 323.
26.
JenkinsM. M.YoungstromE. A.WashburnJ. J.YoungstromJ. K. (2011). Evidence-based strategies improve assessment of pediatric bipolar disorder by community practitioners. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42, 121.
27.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
28.
KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29.
LarrickR. P. (2004). Debiasing. In KoehlerD.HarveyN. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 316–338). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
30.
LiberatiA.AltmanD. G.TetzlaffJ.MulrowC.GøtzscheP. C.IoannidisJ. P.…MoherD. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000100.
31.
LiederF.GriffithsT. L.HuysQ. J.GoodmanN. D. (2018). The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 322−349.
32.
LiuJ.WyattJ. C.AltmanD. G. (2006). Decision tools in health care: Focus on the problem, not the solution. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 6, 4.
33.
LordC. G.LepperM. R.PrestonE. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1231.
34.
LudolphR.SchulzP. J. (2017). Debiasing health-related judgments and decision making: A systematic review. Medical Decision Making, 38, 3−13.
35.
MamedeS.van GogT.van den BergeK.RikersR. M.van SaaseJ. L.van GuldenerC.SchmidtH. G. (2010). Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. Journal of the American Medical Association, 304, 1198−1203.
36.
MeehlP. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
37.
MummaG. H.WilsonS. B. (1995). Procedural debiasing of primacy/anchoring effects in clinical-like judgments. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 841−853.
38.
MunroE. (1996). Avoidable and unavoidable mistakes in child protection work. British Journal of Social Work, 26, 793–808.
39.
MunroE. (1999). Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 745–758. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00053-8
40.
NisbettR.RossL. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
41.
NormanG. R.MonteiroS. D.SherbinoJ.IlgenJ. S.SchmidtH. G.MamedeS. (2017). The causes of errors in clinical reasoning: Cognitive biases, knowledge deficits, and dual process thinking. Academic Medicine, 92, 23−30.
42.
PatelV. L.KannampallilT. G.ShortliffeE. H. (2015). Role of cognition in generating and mitigating clinical errors. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24, 468−474. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003482
43.
SaposnikG.RedelmeierD.RuffC. C.ToblerP. N. (2016). Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: A systematic review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16, 138.
44.
ScottI. A.SoonJ.ElshaugA. G.LindnerR. (2017). Countering cognitive biases in minimising low value care. The Medical Journal of Australia, 206, 407−411.
45.
ShariatS. F.CapitanioU.JeldresC.KarakiewiczP. I. (2009). Can nomograms be superior to other prediction tools?BJU International, 103, 492−497.
46.
SherbinoJ.KulasegaramK.HoweyE.NormanG. (2014). Ineffectiveness of cognitive forcing strategies to reduce biases in diagnostic reasoning: A controlled trial. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 16, 34−40.
47.
ShlonskyA.WagnerD. (2005). The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 409–427.
48.
SmithB. W.SlackM. B. (2015). The effect of cognitive debiasing training among family medicine residents. Diagnosis, 2, 117−121.
49.
SollJ.MilkmanK.PayneJ. (2015). A user’s guide to debiasing. In GideonK.WuG. (Eds.), Wiley-Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
50.
SprattT.DevaneyJ.HayesD. (2015). In and out of home care decisions: The influence of confirmation bias in developing decision supportive reasoning. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 76−85.
51.
SterneJ. C.SuttonA. J.LoannidisJ. A.TerrinN.JonesD. R.LauJ.…HigginsJ. T. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ (Overseas & Retired Doctors Edition), 343, 302−307. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002
52.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207−232.
53.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124−1131.
54.
WuD. (2013). Improving child protective services reunification decisions(Doctoral dissertation). San Francisco, CA: Alliant International University.
