Dataset Information

Defining and Measuring Diagnostic Uncertainty in Medicine: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Physicians routinely encounter diagnostic uncertainty in practice. Despite its impact on health care utilization, costs and error, measurement of diagnostic uncertainty is poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review to describe how diagnostic uncertainty is defined and measured in medical practice.

Methods

We searched OVID Medline and PsycINFO databases from inception until May 2017 using a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Additional search strategies included manual review of references identified in the primary search, use of a topic-specific database (AHRQ-PSNet) and expert input. We specifically focused on articles that (1) defined diagnostic uncertainty; (2) conceptualized diagnostic uncertainty in terms of its sources, complexity of its attributes or strategies for managing it; or (3) attempted to measure diagnostic uncertainty.

Key results

We identified 123 articles for full review, none of which defined diagnostic uncertainty. Three attributes of diagnostic uncertainty were relevant for measurement: (1) it is a subjective perception experienced by the clinician; (2) it has the potential to impact diagnostic evaluation-for example, when inappropriately managed, it can lead to diagnostic delays; and (3) it is dynamic in nature, changing with time. Current methods for measuring diagnostic uncertainty in medical practice include: (1) asking clinicians about their perception of uncertainty (surveys and qualitative interviews), (2) evaluating the patient-clinician encounter (such as by reviews of medical records, transcripts of patient-clinician communication and observation), and (3) experimental techniques (patient vignette studies).

Conclusions

The term "diagnostic uncertainty" lacks a clear definition, and there is no comprehensive framework for its measurement in medical practice. Based on review findings, we propose that diagnostic uncertainty be defined as a "subjective perception of an inability to provide an accurate explanation of the patient's health problem." Methodological advancements in measuring diagnostic uncertainty can improve our understanding of diagnostic decision-making and inform interventions to reduce diagnostic errors and overuse of health care resources.

SUBMITTER: Bhise V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5756158 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining and Measuring Diagnostic Uncertainty in Medicine: A Systematic Review.

Bhise Viraj V Rajan Suja S SS Sittig Dean F DF Morgan Robert O RO Chaudhary Pooja P Singh Hardeep H

Journal of general internal medicine 20170921 1

<h4>Background</h4>Physicians routinely encounter diagnostic uncertainty in practice. Despite its impact on health care utilization, costs and error, measurement of diagnostic uncertainty is poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review to describe how diagnostic uncertainty is defined and measured in medical practice.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched OVID Medline and PsycINFO databases from inception until May 2017 using a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Additional ...[more]

PMID: 28936618

Similar Datasets

Project description:Diagnostic uncertainty is one of the largest contributory factors to the occurrence of diagnostic errors across most specialties in medicine and arguably uncertainty is greatest in primary care due to the undifferentiated symptoms primary care physicians are often presented with. Physicians can respond to diagnostic uncertainty in various ways through the interplay of a series of cognitive, emotional and ethical reactions. The consequences of such uncertainty however can impact negatively upon the primary care practitioner, their patients and the wider healthcare system. Understanding the nature of the existing empirical literature in relation to managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary medical care is a logical and necessary first step in order to understand what solutions are already available and/or to aid the development of any training or feedback aimed at better managing this uncertainty. This review is the first to characterize the existing empirical literature on managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care.Sixteen databases were systematically searched from inception to present with no restrictions. Hand searches of relevant websites and reference lists of included studies were also conducted. Two authors conducted abstract/article screening and data extraction. PRISMA guidelines were adhered to.Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. A narrative and conceptual synthesis was undertaken under the premises of critical reviews. Results suggest that studies have focused on internal factors (traits, skills and strategies) associated with managing diagnostic uncertainty with only one external intervention identified. Cognitive factors ranged from the influences of epistemological viewpoints to practical approaches such as greater knowledge of the patient, utilizing resources to hand and using appropriate safety netting techniques. Emotional aspects of uncertainty management included clinicians embracing uncertainty and working with provisional diagnoses. Ethical aspects of uncertainty management centered on communicating diagnostic uncertainties with patients. Personality traits and characteristics influenced each of the three domains.There is little empirical evidence on how uncertainty is managed in general practice. However we highlight how the extant literature can be conceptualised into cognitive, emotional and ethical aspects of uncertainty which may help clinicians be more aware of their own biases as well as provide a platform for future research.PROSPERO registration: CRD42015027555.

Project description:Introduction:Task shifting interventions have been implemented to improve health and address health inequities. Little is known about how inequity and vulnerability are defined and measured in research on task shifting. We conducted a systematic review to identify how inequity and vulnerability are identified, defined and measured in task shifting research from high-income countries. Methods and analysis:We implemented a novel search process to identify programs of research concerning task shifting interventions in high-income countries. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CENTRAL to identify articles published from 2004 to 2016. Each program of research incorporated a "parent" randomized trial and "child" publications or sub-studies arising from the same research group. Two investigators extracted (1) study details, (2) definitions and measures of health equity or population vulnerability, and (3) assessed the quality of the reporting and measurement of health equity and vulnerability using a five-point scale developed for this study. We summarized the findings using a narrative approach. Results:Fifteen programs of research met inclusion criteria, involving 15 parent randomized trials and 62 child publications. Included programs of research were all undertaken in the United States, among Hispanic- (5/15), African- (2/15), and Korean-Americans (1/15), and low socioeconomic status (2/15), rural (2/15) and older adult populations (2/15). Task shifting interventions included community health workers, peers, and a variety of other non-professional and lay workers to address a range of non-communicable diseases. Some research provided robust analyses of the affected populations' health inequities and demonstrated how a task shifting intervention redressed those concerns. Other studies provided no such definitions and measured only biomedical endpoints. Conclusion:Included studies vary substantially in the definition and measurement of health inequity and vulnerability. A more precise theoretical and evaluative framework for task shifting is recommended to effectively achieve the goal of equitable health.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with malaria-like symptoms seek treatment in private medicine retail outlets (PMR) that distribute malaria medicines but do not traditionally provide diagnostic services, potentially leading to overtreatment with antimalarial drugs. To achieve universal access to prompt parasite-based diagnosis, many malaria-endemic countries are considering scaling up malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) in these outlets, an intervention that may require legislative changes and major investments in supporting programs and infrastructures. This review identifies studies that introduced malaria RDTs in PMRs and examines study outcomes and success factors to inform scale up decisions.MethodsPublished and unpublished studies that introduced malaria RDTs in PMRs were systematically identified and reviewed. Literature published before November 2016 was searched in six electronic databases, and unpublished studies were identified through personal contacts and stakeholder meetings. Outcomes were extracted from publications or provided by principal investigators.ResultsSix published and six unpublished studies were found. Most studies took place in sub-Saharan Africa and were small-scale pilots of RDT introduction in drug shops or pharmacies. None of the studies assessed large-scale implementation in PMRs. RDT uptake varied widely from 8%-100%. Provision of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) for patients testing positive ranged from 30%-99%, and was more than 85% in five studies. Of those testing negative, provision of antimalarials varied from 2%-83% and was less than 20% in eight studies. Longer provider training, lower RDT retail prices and frequent supervision appeared to have a positive effect on RDT uptake and provider adherence to test results. Performance of RDTs by PMR vendors was generally good, but disposal of medical waste and referral of patients to public facilities were common challenges.ConclusionsExpanding services of PMRs to include malaria diagnostic services may hold great promise to improve malaria case management and curb overtreatment with antimalarials. However, doing so will require careful planning, investment and additional research to develop and sustain effective training, supervision, waste-management, referral and surveillance programs beyond the public sector.

Project description:Safety climate measurements can be used to proactively assess an organization's effectiveness in identifying and remediating work-related hazards, thereby reducing or preventing work-related ill health and injury. This review article focuses on construction-specific articles that developed and/or measured safety climate, assessed safety climate's relationship with other safety and health performance indicators, and/or used safety climate measures to evaluate interventions targeting one or more indicators of safety climate. Fifty-six articles met our inclusion criteria, 80% of which were published after 2008. Our findings demonstrate that researchers commonly defined safety climate as perception based, but the object of those perceptions varies widely. Within the wide range of indicators used to measure safety climate, safety policies, procedures, and practices were the most common, followed by general management commitment to safety. The most frequently used indicators should and do reflect that the prevention of work-related ill health and injury depends on both organizational and employee actions. Safety climate scores were commonly compared between groups (e.g. management and workers, different trades), and often correlated with subjective measures of safety behavior rather than measures of ill health or objective safety and health outcomes. Despite the observed limitations of current research, safety climate has been promised as a useful feature of research and practice activities to prevent work-related ill health and injury. Safety climate survey data can reveal gaps between management and employee perceptions, or between espoused and enacted policies, and trigger communication and action to narrow those gaps. The validation of safety climate with safety and health performance data offers the potential for using safety climate measures as a leading indicator of performance. We discuss these findings in relation to the related concept of safety culture and offer suggestions for future research and practice including (i) deriving a common definition of safety climate, (ii) developing and testing construction-specific indicators of safety climate, and (iii) focusing on construction-specific issues such as the transient workforce, subcontracting, work organization, and induction/acculturation processes.

Project description:IntroductionTask shifting interventions are intended to both deliver clinically effective treatments to reduce disease burden and address health inequities or population vulnerability. Little is known about how health equity and population vulnerability are defined and measured in research focused on task shifting. This systematic review will address the following questions: Among task shifting interventions in high-income settings that have been studied using randomised controlled trials or variants, how are health inequity or population vulnerability identified and defined? What methods and indicators are used to describe, characterise and measure the population's baseline status and the intervention's impacts on inequity and vulnerability?Methods and analysisStudies were identified through database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science). Eligible studies will be randomised controlled trials published since 2004, conducted in high-income countries, concerning task shifting interventions to treat any disease, in any population that may face health disadvantage as defined by the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, social capital, socioeconomic position, age, disability, sexual orientation, other vulnerable groups). We will conduct independent and duplicate title and abstract screening, then identify related papers from the same programme of research through further database and manual searching. From each programme of research, we will extract study details, and definitions and measures of health equity or population vulnerability based on the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Two investigators will assess the quality of reporting and measurement related to health equity and vulnerability using a scale developed for this study. A narrative synthesis will highlight similarities and differences between the gathered studies and offer critical analyses and implications.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not involve primary data collection, does not constitute research on human subjects and is not subject to additional institutional ethics review or informed consent procedures. Dissemination will include open-access peer-reviewed publication and academic conference presentations.PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42017049959.

Dataset Information

Defining and Measuring Diagnostic Uncertainty in Medicine: A Systematic Review.

Background

Methods

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

Defining and Measuring Diagnostic Uncertainty in Medicine: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets