Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29314508›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2018

How the dual process model of human cognition can inform efforts to de-implement ineffective and harmful clinical practices: A preliminary model of unlearning and substitution.

Christian D Helfrich, Adam J Rose, Christine W Hartmann, Leti van Bodegom-Vos, Ian D Graham, Suzanne J Wood, Barbara R Majerczyk, Chester B Good, Leonard M Pogach, Sherry L Ball and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Serious games may improve physician heuristics in trauma triage.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Christian D HelfrichVA Puget Sound Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Seattle, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9827-4768
Adam J RoseSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, USA.
Christine W HartmannCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR) Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, USA.
Leti van Bodegom-VosDepartment of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ian D GrahamSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Suzanne J WoodGraduate Program in Health Services Administration, Department of Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Barbara R MajerczykVA Puget Sound Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Seattle, USA.
Chester B GoodCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh healthcare System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Pittsburgh, USA.
Leonard M PogachOffice of Specialty Care, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, USA.
Sherry L BallLouis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, Cleveland, USA.
David H AuVA Puget Sound Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Seattle, USA.
David C AronDepartment of Medicine, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesOne way to understand medical overuse at the clinician level is in terms of clinical decision-making processes that are normally adaptive but become maladaptive. In psychology, dual process models of cognition propose 2 decision-making processes. Reflective cognition is a conscious process of evaluating options based on some combination of utility, risk, capabilities, and/or social influences. Automatic cognition is a largely unconscious process occurring in response to environmental or emotive cues based on previously learned, ingrained heuristics. De-implementation strategies directed at clinicians may be conceptualized as corresponding to cognition: (1) a process of unlearning based on reflective cognition and (2) a process of substitution based on automatic cognition.

resultsWe define unlearning as a process in which clinicians consciously change their knowledge, beliefs, and intentions about an ineffective practice and alter their behaviour accordingly. Unlearning has been described as "the questioning of established knowledge, habits, beliefs and assumptions as a prerequisite to identifying inappropriate or obsolete knowledge underpinning and/or embedded in existing practices and routines." We hypothesize that as an unintended consequence of unlearning strategies clinicians may experience "reactance," ie, feel their professional prerogative is being violated and, consequently, increase their commitment to the ineffective practice. We define substitution as replacing the ineffective practice with one or more alternatives. A substitute is a specific alternative action or decision that either precludes the ineffective practice or makes it less likely to occur. Both approaches may work independently, eg, a substitute could displace an ineffective practice without changing clinicians' knowledge, and unlearning could occur even if no alternative exists. For some clinical practice, unlearning and substitution strategies may be most effectively used together.

conclusionsBy taking into account the dual process model of cognition, we may be able to design de-implementation strategies matched to clinicians' decision-making processes and avoid unintended consequence.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingCognitionConcept FormationLearningPhysiciansHumansMedical OveruseModels, PsychologicalPractice Patterns, Physicians'Professional PracticeQuality Improvementde-implementationdual process cognitionmedical overusequality improvementsubstitutionunlearning

Identifiers

PMID29314508
PMCPMC5900912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.