Clinicians' cognitive biases: a potential barrier to implementation of evidence-based clinical practice

Access to device-aided therapies in advanced Parkinson's disease: navigating clinician biases, patient preference, and prognostic uncertainty

Device-aided therapies (DAT), which include deep brain stimulation and pump-based continuous dopaminergic stimulation with either levodopa or apomorphine, are among the major advances in the clinical management of Parkinson's disease (PD). Although DAT are being increasingly offered earlier in the disease course, their classical indication remains advanced PD. Theoretically, every patient should be offered transition to DAT when faced with refractory motor and nonmotor fluctuations and functional decline. Worldwide clinical reality is far from these ideal, and, therefore, question the "real-world" equal opportunity of access to DAT for PD patients with advanced PD-even within a single health care system. Differences in access to care, referral pattern (timing and frequency), as well as physician biases (unconscious/implicit or conscious/explicit bias), and patients' preferences or health-seeking behaviour are to be considered. Compared to DBS, little information is available concerning infusion therapies, as well as neurologists' and patients' attitudes towards them. This viewpoint aims to be thought-provoking and to assist clinicians in moving through the process of DAT selection, by including in their decision algorithm their own biases, patient perspective, ethical concerns as well as the current unknowns surrounding PD prognosis and DAT-related long-term side effects for a given patient.

Zero the hero: Evidence for involvement of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in affective bias for free items

Recent evidence from psycho-economics shows that when the price of an item decreases to the extent that it becomes available for free, one can observe a remarkable increase of subjective utility toward this item. This phenomenon, which is not observed for any other price but zero, has been termed the zero-price effect (ZPE). The ZPE is attributed to an affective heuristic where the positive affect elicited by the free status of an item provides a mental shortcut biasing choice towards that item. Given that the ZPE relies on affective processing, a key role of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) has been proposed, yet neuroscientific studies of the ZPE remain scarce. This study aimed to explore the role of the vmPFC in the ZPE using a novel, within-subject assessment in participants with either an acquired (lesion patients) or degenerative (behavioural-variant frontotemporal dementia patients) lesion of the vmPFC, and age-matched healthy controls. All participants were asked to make a series of choices between pairs of items that varied in price. One choice trial involved an equal decrease of both item prices, such that one of the items was priced zero. In contrast to controls, patients with both vmPFC-lesion and behavioural-variant frontotemporal dementia showed marked reductions in zero-related changes of preference in pairs of gift-cards, but not for pairs of food items. Our findings suggest that affective evaluations driving the ZPE are altered in patients with focal or degenerative damage to the vmPFC. This supports the notion of a key role of the vmPFC in the ZPE and, more generally, the importance of this region in value-based affective decision-making. Our findings also highlight the potential utility of affective heuristic tasks in future clinical assessments.

COVID-19 and the eye: alternative facts The 2022 Bowman Club, David L. Easty lecture

In addition to catastrophic loss of life, and dramatic and unwanted alterations to the daily lives of those left behind, the COVID-19 pandemic has fostered the publication and dissemination of an unprecedented quantity of peer-reviewed medical and scientific publications on a single subject. In particular, the ophthalmic literature is now replete with clinical and laboratory studies on putative eye involvement by SARS-CoV-2, the aetiologic agent of COVID-19. In this review, we critically appraise the published literature on COVID-19, and suggest that the quality of scientific peer review and editorial decision-making also suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adjuvant Imatinib in Patients with GIST Harboring Exon 9 KIT Mutations: Results from a Multi-institutional European Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

The effect of high-dose imatinib (800 mg/day) on survival in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected KIT exon 9-mutated gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is not established. Here, the association of dose and other clinicopathologic variables with survival was evaluated in a large multi-institutional European cohort.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Data from 185 patients were retrospectively collected in 23 European GIST reference centers. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse-probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to account for confounders. Univariate and multivariate unweighted and weighted Cox proportional hazard regression models were estimated for relapse-free survival (RFS), modified-RFS (mRFS) and imatinib failure-free survival (IFFS). Univariate Cox models were estimated for overall survival.

RESULTS

Of the 185 patients, 131 (70.8%) received a starting dose of 400 mg/d and the remaining 54 (29.2%) a dose of 800 mg/d. Baseline characteristics were partially unbalanced, suggesting a potential selection bias. PSM and IPTW analyses showed no advantage of imatinib 800 mg/d. In the weighted multivariate Cox models, high-dose imatinib was not associated with the survival outcomes [RFS: hazard ratio (HR), 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-1.94; mRFS: HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.92-3.10; IFFS: HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.79-2.28]. The variables consistently associated with worse survival outcomes were high mitotic index and nongastric tumor location.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective series of patients with KIT exon 9-mutated GIST treated with adjuvant imatinib, a daily dose of 800 mg versus 400 mg did not show better results in terms of survival outcomes. Prospective evaluation of the more appropriate adjuvant treatment in this setting is warranted.

Educational strategies to enhance EBM teaching and learning in the workplace: a focus group study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to gather and synthesise educational strategies that can improve teaching and learning of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the workplace, and make them concrete by listing ideas for implementing these strategies. Insight into current workplace-based EBM teaching and learning in general practice was the starting point to generate these strategies and ideas.

DESIGN

Exploratory, qualitative focus group study, applying the consensus method of the nominal group technique.

SETTING

Postgraduate medical education; general practitioner (GP) specialty training at University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands PARTICIPANTS: 33 GPs and 17 GP trainees, divided in four focus groups. Using opportunistic sampling, participants were selected from the GP workplace because of their role as supervisor or trainee.

MAIN OUTCOMES

An overview of educational strategies and ideas on how to implement these strategies in the workplace, followed by the participants' global ranking of the most useful ideas.

RESULTS

The supervisors and trainees generated a list of educational improvement strategies that can be applied in learning conversations, while observing each other's consultations, and in (multidisciplinary) learning opportunities in the workplace. Table 1 presents the educational strategies and suggestions for implementing them. Ideas regarded as most useful include taking turns to conduct consultations and observing the other, holding a structured, in-depth discussion after observation, preparing and discussing articles found in relevant journals and on-the-spot searching for relevant evidence during learning conversations.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants provided an extensive list of educational strategies and ideas on how to implement EBM learning in daily practice. As a great deal of GP training takes place in clinical practice, supervisors and trainees could apply the suggested ideas to enhance EBM teaching and learning in the workplace.

Cognitive bias: how understanding its impact on antibiotic prescribing decisions can help advance antimicrobial stewardship

The way clinicians think about decision-making is evolving. Human decision-making shifts between two modes of thinking, either fast/intuitive (Type 1) or slow/deliberate (Type 2). In the healthcare setting where thousands of decisions are made daily, Type 1 thinking can reduce cognitive load and help ensure decision making is efficient and timely, but it can come at the expense of accuracy, leading to systematic errors, also called cognitive biases. This review provides an introduction to cognitive bias and provides explanation through patient vignettes of how cognitive biases contribute to suboptimal antibiotic prescribing. We describe common cognitive biases in antibiotic prescribing both from the clinician and the patient perspective, including hyperbolic discounting (the tendency to favour small immediate benefits over larger more distant benefits) and commission bias (the tendency towards action over inaction). Management of cognitive bias includes encouraging more mindful decision making (e.g., time-outs, checklists), improving awareness of one's own biases (i.e., meta-cognition), and designing an environment that facilitates safe and accurate decision making (e.g., decision support tools, nudges). A basic understanding of cognitive biases can help explain why certain stewardship interventions are more effective than others and may inspire more creative strategies to ensure antibiotics are used more safely and more effectively in our patients.

Changing the culture of urine culturing: Utilizing Agile Implementation to improve diagnostic stewardship in the ICU

Over diagnosis of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) contributes to unnecessary and excessive antibiotic use, selection for resistant organisms, increased risk for Clostridiodes difficile infections, as well as a false elevation in CAUTI rates. Utilizing agile implementation to implement a urine culture algorithm achieved statistically significant reduction in CAUTI rates in a critical care unit resulting in sustainment and spread throughout the system.

Implementing nudges for suicide prevention in real-world environments: project INSPIRE study protocol

Background

Suicide is a global health issue. There are a number of evidence-based practices for suicide screening, assessment, and intervention that are not routinely deployed in usual care settings. The goal of this study is to develop and test implementation strategies to facilitate evidence-based suicide screening, assessment, and intervention in two settings where individuals at risk for suicide are especially likely to present: primary care and specialty mental health care. We will leverage methods from behavioral economics, which involves understanding the many factors that influence human decision making, to inform strategy development.

Methods

We will identify key mechanisms that limit implementation of evidence-based suicide screening, assessment, and intervention practices in primary care and specialty mental health through contextual inquiry involving behavioral health and primary care clinicians. Second, we will use contextual inquiry results to systematically design a menu of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies that cut across settings, in collaboration with an advisory board composed of key stakeholders (i.e., behavioral economists, clinicians, implementation scientists, and suicide prevention experts). Finally, we will conduct rapid-cycle trials to test and refine the menu of implementation strategies. Primary outcomes include clinician-reported feasibility and acceptability of the implementation strategies.

Discussion

Findings will elucidate ways to address common and unique barriers to evidence-based suicide screening, assessment, and intervention practices in primary care and specialty mental health care. Results will yield refined, pragmatically tested strategies that can inform larger confirmatory trials to combat the growing public health crisis of suicide.

Poor quality research and clinical practice during COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has turned our lives upside down. Health services have adapted to the challenges posed by the pandemic at eye-watering speed. Telemedicine has seen a rapid uptake in order for patient–physician encounters to comply with social distancing regulations. Elective surgeries have been put on hold to make room in hospitals for patients with COVID-19 and save valuable personal protective equipment. Many pre-pandemic research projects have been put on hold, and legions of medical researchers are now dedicated to researching COVID-19.

Breathe Chief Editor @ClaudiaCDobler on how #COVID19 amplifies flaws in clinical research and practicehttps://bit.ly/3cX0jpO

Bias in Clinical Practice

Role of bias in errors of decision making is receiving increasing attention. It is turning out to be one of the main sources of mistakes. Hence, it is important to be aware of biases and to design strategies toward an unbiased approach. Biases are of various types, and the potential sources of bias can be related to the consultant, patients and factors related to working conditions. Availability bias, base rate neglect, confirmation bias, conjunction rule, diagnostic momentum bias, framing effect and confirmation bias are the common types, and these have been discussed in this manuscript using a scenario-based format. Two types of human thinking, the rapid intuitive mode and the slow reflective mode, their pros and cons and their role in biases are discussed. Strategies to enhance awareness of biases, tips to improve reasoning, promote freethinking, enhance decision-making skills and resorting to checklists have been deliberated to achieve an unbiased approach.

Too much or too little medicine? Overdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, overtreatment and undertreatment in respiratory diseases

At a time when technical possibilities for medical investigations are plentiful and ever expanding, there is growing awareness that more is not always better and that “too much medicine” may be harmful. In recent years, the global Choosing Wisely educational campaign has aimed to bring attention to unnecessary healthcare. Unnecessary healthcare includes overtesting, overdiagnosis and overtreatment [1]. The March issue of Breathe aims to challenge us to rethink our clinical practice, to reflect on the evidence, and to identify potential cognitive biases that might influence us to provide “too much” or “too little” medicine [2].

The March issue of Breathe focuses on overdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, overtreatment and undertreatment in respiratory diseaseshttp://ow.ly/63OW30ntCeu