The Impact of an Online Evidence System on Confidence in Decision Making in a Controlled Setting

Author:

Westbrook Johanna I.1,Gosling A. Sophie2,Coiera Enrico W.2

Affiliation:

1. Centre for Health Informatics, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia,

2. Centre for Health Informatics, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia

Abstract

Objective. To examine the impact of online evidence retrieval on clinicians’ decision-making confidence and to determine if this differs for experienced doctors and nurses. Methods. A sample of 44 doctors and 31 clinical nurse consultants (CNCs) answered 8 clinical scenarios (600 scenario answers) before and after the use of online evidence resources. Clinicians rated their confidence in scenario answers and in the evidence they found using the information system. Results. Prior to using online evidence, 37% of doctors and 18% of CNCs answered the scenarios correctly. These clinicians were more confident (56% very confident or confident) in their answers than those with incorrect (34%) answers. Doctors with incorrect answers prior to searching rated their confidence significantly higher than did nurses who were incorrect. After searching, both groups answered 50% of scenarios correctly. Clinicians with correct answers had greater confidence in the evidence found compared to those with incorrect answers. Doctors were more confident in evidence found confirming an initially correct answer than were nurses. More than 50% of clinicians who persisted with an incorrect answer after searching reported that they were confident or very confident in the evidence found. Clinicians who did not know scenario answers before searching placed equal confidence in evidence that led them to a correct or incorrect answer. Conclusions. The information obtained from an online evidence system influenced clinicians’ confidence in their answers to the clinical scenarios. The relationship between confidence in answers and correctness is complex. Both existing knowledge and professional role were mediating factors. The finding that many clinicians placed confidence in information that led them to incorrect answers warrants further investigation.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Cited by 41 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

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