IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i3p335-345.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of Clinical Experience and Scientific Evidence in Medical Decision Making: A Survey of a Stratified Random Sample of Swedish Health Care Professionals

Author

Listed:
  • Barry Dewitt

    (Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Johannes Persson

    (Department of Philosophy, Lund University, Lund, Sweden)

  • Annika Wallin

    (Department of Cognitive Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden)

Abstract

Background Evidence-based medicine recognizes that clinical expertise gained through experience is essential to good medical practice. However, it is not known what beliefs clinicians hold about how personal clinical experience and scientific knowledge contribute to their clinical decision making and how those beliefs vary between professions, which themselves vary along relevant characteristics, such as their evidence base. Design We investigate how years in the profession influence health care professionals’ beliefs about science and their clinical experience through surveys administered to random samples of Swedish physicians, nurses, occupational therapists, dentists, and dental hygienists. The sampling frame was each profession’s most recent occupational registry. Results Participants ( N  = 1,627, 46% response rate) viewed science as more important for decision making, more certain, and more systematic than experience. Differences among the professions were greatest for systematicity, where physicians saw the largest gap between the 2 types of knowledge across all levels of professional experience. The effect of years in the profession varied; it had little effect on assessments of importance across all professions but otherwise tended to decrease the difference between assessments of science and experience. Physicians placed the greatest emphasis on science over clinical experience among the 5 professions surveyed. Conclusions Health care professions appear to share some attitudes toward professional knowledge, despite the variation in the age of the professions and the scientific knowledge base available to practitioners. Training and policy making about clinical decision making might improve by accounting for the ways in which knowledge is understood across the professions. Highlights Study participants, representing 5 health care professions—medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, dentistry, and dental hygiene—viewed science as more important for decision making, more certain, and more systematic than their personal clinical experience. Of all the professions represented in the study, physicians saw the greatest differences between the 2 types of knowledge. The effect of years of professional experience varied but tended to be small, attenuating the differences seen between science and clinical experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Barry Dewitt & Johannes Persson & Annika Wallin, 2024. "Perceptions of Clinical Experience and Scientific Evidence in Medical Decision Making: A Survey of a Stratified Random Sample of Swedish Health Care Professionals," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(3), pages 335-345, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:3:p:335-345
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241234318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241234318
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241234318?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:3:p:335-345. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.