IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i1p3-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Debiasing Health-Related Judgments and Decision Making: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Ramona Ludolph
  • Peter J. Schulz

Abstract

Background. Being confronted with uncertainty in the context of health-related judgments and decision making can give rise to the occurrence of systematic biases. These biases may detrimentally affect lay persons and health experts alike. Debiasing aims at mitigating these negative effects by eliminating or reducing the biases. However, little is known about its effectiveness. This study seeks to systematically review the research on health-related debiasing to identify new opportunities and challenges for successful debiasing strategies. Methods. A systematic search resulted in 2748 abstracts eligible for screening. Sixty-eight articles reporting 87 relevant studies met the predefined inclusion criteria and were categorized and analyzed with regard to content and quality. All steps were undertaken independently by 2 reviewers, and inconsistencies were resolved through discussion. Results. The majority of debiasing interventions ( n = 60) was at least partially successful. Optimistic biases ( n = 25), framing effects ( n = 14), and base rate neglects ( n = 10) were the main targets of debiasing efforts. Cognitive strategies ( n = 36) such as “consider-the-opposite†and technological interventions ( n = 33) such as visual aids were mainly tested. Thirteen studies aimed at debiasing health care professionals’ judgments, while 74 interventions addressed the general population. Studies’ methodological quality ranged from 26.2% to 92.9%, with an average rating of 68.7%. Discussion. In the past, the usefulness of debiasing was often debated. Yet most of the interventions reviewed here are found to be effective, pointing to the utility of debiasing in the health context. In particular, technological strategies offer a novel opportunity to pursue large-scale debiasing outside the laboratory. The need to strengthen the transfer of debiasing interventions to real-life settings and a lack of conceptual rigor are identified as the main challenges requiring further research.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramona Ludolph & Peter J. Schulz, 2018. "Debiasing Health-Related Judgments and Decision Making: A Systematic Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 3-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:1:p:3-13
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17716672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17716672
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17716672?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sutton, Stephen, 2002. "Influencing optimism in smokers by giving information about the average smoker," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 165-174, June.
    2. Dillard, Amanda J. & Fagerlin, Angela & Cin, Sonya Dal & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2010. "Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 45-52, July.
    3. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    4. Savani, Krishna & King, Dan, 2015. "Perceiving outcomes as determined by external forces: The role of event construal in attenuating the outcome bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 136-146.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elena Druică & Fabio Musso & Rodica Ianole-Călin, 2020. "Optimism Bias during the Covid-19 Pandemic: Empirical Evidence from Romania and Italy," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shuang Liu & Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson, 2019. "A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 221-241, November.
    2. Doumpos, Michalis & Zopounidis, Constantin & Gounopoulos, Dimitrios & Platanakis, Emmanouil & Zhang, Wenke, 2023. "Operational research and artificial intelligence methods in banking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 1-16.
    3. Jaspersen, Johannes G., 2022. "Convex combinations in judgment aggregation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 780-794.
    4. Wang, Qun & Jia, Guozhu & Song, Wenyan, 2022. "Identifying critical factors in systems with interrelated components: A method considering heterogeneous influence and strength attenuation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(1), pages 456-470.
    5. Richard B. Anderson & Laura Marie Leventhal & Don C. Zhang & Daniel Fasko, Jr. & Zachariah Basehore & Christopher Gamsby & Jared Branch & Timothy Patrick, 2019. "Belief bias and representation in assessing the Bayesian rationality of others," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, January.
    6. Jin Tian & Yundou Wang & Shutian Gao, 2022. "Analysis of Mining-Related Injuries in Chinese Coal Mines and Related Risk Factors: A Statistical Research Study Based on a Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    8. Marco Castellani & Linda Alengoz & Niccolò Casnici & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "A role-game laboratory experiment on the influence of country prospects reports on investment decisions in two artificial organizational settings," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 21(1), pages 121-149, June.
    9. Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Rolf, Philipp, 2021. "Effects of decision training on individuals’ decision-making proactivity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 264-282.
    10. Gary J. Summers, 2021. "Friction and Decision Rules in Portfolio Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 101-120, June.
    11. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    12. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    13. Parreiras, R.O. & Kokshenev, I. & Carvalho, M.O.M. & Willer, A.C.M. & Dellezzopolles, C.F. & Nacif, D.B. & Santana, J.A., 2019. "A flexible multicriteria decision-making methodology to support the strategic management of Science, Technology and Innovation research funding programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(2), pages 725-739.
    14. Ma, Anyi & Yang, Yu & Savani, Krishna, 2019. "“Take it or leave it!” A choice mindset leads to greater persistence and better outcomes in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-12.
    15. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    16. Jin-Hwan Bae & Jin-Woo Park, 2021. "Research into Individual Factors Affecting Safety within Airport Subsidiaries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, May.
    17. Anca M. Hanea & Marissa F. McBride & Mark A. Burgman & Bonnie C. Wintle, 2018. "The Value of Performance Weights and Discussion in Aggregated Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1781-1794, September.
    18. Glorian Sorensen & Susan Peters & Karina Nielsen & Eve Nagler & Melissa Karapanos & Lorraine Wallace & Lisa Burke & Jack T. Dennerlein & Gregory R. Wagner, 2019. "Improving Working Conditions to Promote Worker Safety, Health, and Wellbeing for Low-Wage Workers: The Workplace Organizational Health Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    19. Fabriziomaria Gobba & Enrico Dall’Olio & Alberto Modenese & Michele De Maria & Luca Campi & Gian Maria Cavallini, 2017. "Work-Related Eye Injuries: A Relevant Health Problem. Main Epidemiological Data from a Highly-Industrialized Area of Northern Italy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-12, June.
    20. Aubert, Alice H. & Esculier, Fabien & Lienert, Judit, 2020. "Recommendations for online elicitation of swing weights from citizens in environmental decision-making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).

    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:38:y:2018:i:1:p:3-13. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.