ArticleBMJ open2024
Mapping cognitive biases in multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision-making for cancer care in Scotland: a cognitive ethnography study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe efficiency of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in cancer care hinges on facilitating clinicians' cognitive processes as they navigate complex and uncertain judgements during treatment planning. When systems and workflows are not designed to adequately support human judgement and decision-making, even experts are prone to fallible reasoning due to cognitive biases. Incomplete integration of information or biased interpretations of patient data can lead to clinical errors and delays in the implementation of treatment recommendations. Though their impact is intuitively recognised, there is currently a paucity of empirical work on cognitive biases in MDT decision-making. Our study aims to explicate the impact of such biases on treatment planning and establish a foundation for targeted investigations and interventions to mitigate their negative effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a qualitative, observational study. We employ cognitive ethnography, informed by the Distributed Cognition for Teamwork framework to assess and evaluate MDT decision-making processes. The study involves in-person and virtual field observations of hepatopancreaticobiliary and upper gastrointestinal MDTs and interviews with their members over several months. The data generated will be analysed in a hybrid inductive/deductive fashion to develop a comprehensive map of potential cognitive biases in MDT decision processes identifying antecedents and risk factors of suboptimal treatment planning processes. Further, we will identify components of the MDT environment that can be redesigned to support decision-making via development of an MDT workspace evaluation tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project has received management and ethical approvals from NHS Lothian Research and Development (2023/0245) and the University of Edinburgh Medical School ethical review committee (23-EMREC-049). Findings will be shared with participating MDTs and disseminated via a PhD thesis, international conference presentations and relevant scientific journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.