Pitfalls from Psychology Science that Worsen with Practice

Patients' Experience and Satisfaction Regarding the Pre-Operative Shower: The PRODOUCH Multicenter Descriptive Survey

Background: Patients' experience of the pre-operative shower remains poorly assessed in the literature although it is an essential step in the prevention of surgical site infection. For obese patients, a pre-operative shower could be challenging. The goal was to assess patient satisfaction and experience with the process of pre-operative shower, and the effect of obesity status. Patients and Methods: This study was a multicenter prospective survey of consecutive surgical patients from nine hospitals. Data on the pre-operative shower were collected via telephone interview two to four weeks after surgery, and included the place (hospital, home), time, information received, difficulties experienced, the presence or absence of a visual assessment of skin cleanliness by a healthcare professional after the pre-operative shower, and overall patient satisfaction with the pre-operative shower technique. Data on the surgical procedure and patients' characteristics were collected from patients' records, and included age, gender, and body mass index. Factors associated with patient satisfaction were assessed. Results: Among 430 patients, 91.6% declared having received information on the pre-operative shower and 94.8% were very or rather satisfied with the pre-operative shower. Two factors were independently associated with satisfaction: showering at home and having received information on the pre-operative shower, but not obesity status. Only 17% of patients reported a visual assessment of skin cleanliness by a healthcare professional after the pre-operative shower. Discussion: Overall, regardless of obesity status, patients were satisfied with the pre-operative shower and reported no difficulties. However, this survey highlights the fact that skin cleanliness was seldom assessed by healthcare professionals, which may represent an unidentified weakness in skin preparation before surgery.

A Dose of Reality About Dose-Response Relationships

Observational research can be strengthened by examining potential dose-response relationships that correlate a clinical intervention with a patient outcome. Despite being a classic criterion for establishing causality, dose-response testing can be difficult to interpret in clinical medicine due to multiple diverse pitfalls. This review introduces a cautionary framework for investigators considering dose-response relationships in observational research to support evidence-based medicine. Each pitfall is illustrated with a specific example relevant when analyzing a dose-response relationship. Several pitfalls stem from faulty interpretation including confounding by indication and fallible range selection. Additional pitfalls relate to improper analysis including fitting a nonlinear model and misclassification error. Further pitfalls arise in special situations including subjective self-report and artifacts from survival bias. These caveats are common sources of misunderstanding in analyses that examine the link between varying exposures and the intensity of clinical outcomes. Awareness of specific pitfalls, we suggest, might help advance the conduct, application, and translation of dose-response relationships in observational research to inform evidence-based medical care.

The Fallacy of a Single Diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic reasoning requires clinicians to think through complex uncertainties. We tested the possibility of a bias toward an available single diagnosis in uncertain cases.

DESIGN

We developed 5 different surveys providing a succinct description of a hypothetical individual patient scenaric. Each scenario was formulated in 2 versions randomized to participants, with the versions differing only in whether an alternative diagnosis was present or absent. The 5 scenarios were designed as separate tests of robustness using diverse cases, including a cautious scenario, a risky scenario, a sophisticated scenario, a validation scenario, and a comparative scenario (each survey containing only 1 version of 1 scenario). Participants included community members (n = 1104) and health care professionals (n = 200) who judged the chances of COVID infection in an individual patient.

RESULTS

The first scenario described a cautious patient and found a 47% reduction in the estimated odds of COVID when a flu diagnosis was present compared with absent (odds ratio = 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.94, P = 0.003). The second scenario described a less cautious patient and found a 70% reduction in the estimated odds of COVID in the presence of a flu diagnosis (odds ratio = 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.70, P < 0.001). The third was a more sophisticated scenario presented to medical professionals and found a 73% reduction in the estimated odds of COVID in the presence of a mononucleosis diagnosis (odds ratio = 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.75, P < 0.001). Two further scenarios-avoiding mention of population norms-replicated the results.

LIMITATIONS

Brief hypothetical scenarios may overestimate the extent of bias in more complicated medical situations.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that an available simple diagnosis can lead individuals toward premature closure and a failure to fully consider additional severe diseases.

HIGHLIGHTS

Occum's razor has been debated for centuries yet rarely subjected to experimental testing for evidence-based medicine.This article offers direct evidence that people favor an available simple diagnosis, thereby neglecting to consider additional serious diseases.The bias can lead individuals to mistakenly lower their judged likelihood of COVID or another disease when an alternate diagnosis is present.This misconception over the laws of probability appears in judgments by community members and by health care workers.The pitfall in reasoning extends to high-risk cases and is not easily attributed to information, incentives, or random chance.