Confirmation Bias Affects Estimation of Blood Loss and Amniotic Fluid Volume: A Randomized Simulation-Based Trial

Author:

Atallah Fouad1,Moreno-Jackson Rafine1,McLaren Rodney1,Fisher Nelli1,Weedon Jeremy2,Jones Sharifa3,Minkoff Howard14

Affiliation:

1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York

2. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate, School of Public Health, Brooklyn, New York

3. Department of Psychology, Hunter College, City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York

4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate, Brooklyn, New York

Abstract

Abstract Objective This study was aimed to determine if confirmation bias affects diagnoses in obstetrics, specifically estimation of blood loss and amniotic fluid volume. Study Design We performed a randomized simulation-based trial. Participants went through the following three consecutive scenarios: (1) the first involved estimating the volume of blood (actually a blood-like substance) in a container at the simulation model's perineum. The actual volume was either 500 or 1,500 mL. Participants were told it was blood seen after a vaginal delivery. One group was told that the “patient” was normotensive, the other was told that the “patient” was hypotensive. (2) The second scenario involved estimation of amniotic fluid from an ultrasound picture of four quadrants, with one group told that the patient was normotensive and the other group told that the patient had chronic hypertension. (3) The third scenario was a “negative image” of the first (i.e., if they had been randomized to the 500 mL/normotensive in scenario one, then they would be presented with the 1,500 mL/hypotensive). They also filled a survey including demographics and tolerance of ambiguity and confirmation bias scales. Results From April 2018 through May 2018, a convenience sample of 85 providers was recruited. Participants were more likely to overestimate blood loss when they were told that the patient was hypotensive (p = 0.024), in comparison to when they were told the patient had normal blood pressure. They were also less likely to estimate the amniotic fluid as normal when they were told that the patient was hypertensive (p = 0.032). Conclusion Confirmation bias affects estimates of blood loss and amniotic fluid.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynecology,Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Early feasibility and usability study of a novel obstetric blood loss quantifying device;European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology;2024-09

2. Diagnosing Fast and Slow;Obstetrics & Gynecology;2023-09

3. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Cognitive bias and medical error in obstetrics—challenges and opportunities;American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology;2022-08

4. How Human Decision-making Biases Influence Health Outcomes in Patient Care;European Journal of Management Issues;2021-04-28

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3