Expert consensus on cognitive biases affecting child physical abuse evaluations in pediatric emergency medicine: A modified Delphi study

Katherine A. Harmon , Todd P. Chang , Karen K. Imagawa , Anita R. Schmidt , Phung K. Pham , Alan L. Nager
{"title":"Expert consensus on cognitive biases affecting child physical abuse evaluations in pediatric emergency medicine: A modified Delphi study","authors":"Katherine A. Harmon ,&nbsp;Todd P. Chang ,&nbsp;Karen K. Imagawa ,&nbsp;Anita R. Schmidt ,&nbsp;Phung K. Pham ,&nbsp;Alan L. Nager","doi":"10.1016/j.chipro.2024.100080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Child abuse causes significant morbidity and mortality, yet the diagnosis can be missed. Little is known regarding which cognitive biases influence diagnostic errors in child abuse evaluations in Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM).</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To obtain consensus on important cognitive biases that affect accurately diagnosing child physical abuse in the emergency department.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>A multidisciplinary expert panel of 15 nationally recognized experts in pediatric emergency medicine or child abuse pediatrics (CAP).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A modified Delphi study was conducted, including 3 iterative survey rounds of expert opinion and statistical summary of survey responses for an a priori goal of 7–9 cognitive biases. Thirty-two cognitive biases were compiled following review of a sentinel article with corresponding PEM-specific vignettes and definitions. Using a Likert scale, participants rated the importance and frequency of each cognitive bias in physical abuse evaluations. To obtain consensus, the lowest 1/3 of the median importance scores were eliminated for each round. Median frequency scores were used as a tiebreaker between cognitive biases, if required.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirteen of 15 (86.6%) experts completed the Delphi process, agreeing on 9 most important cognitive biases in child physical abuse evaluations: anchoring bias, ascertainment bias, confirmation bias, framing bias, fundamental attribution error, outcome bias, premature closure, unpacking principle, and visceral bias. Each cognitive bias received a final median score of 7 for importance.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Understanding the most important cognitive biases in child physical abuse evaluations in PEM may supplement medical education in reducing misdiagnosis of child abuse.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100237,"journal":{"name":"Child Protection and Practice","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100080"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Protection and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950193824000809","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Child abuse causes significant morbidity and mortality, yet the diagnosis can be missed. Little is known regarding which cognitive biases influence diagnostic errors in child abuse evaluations in Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM).

Objective

To obtain consensus on important cognitive biases that affect accurately diagnosing child physical abuse in the emergency department.

Participants

A multidisciplinary expert panel of 15 nationally recognized experts in pediatric emergency medicine or child abuse pediatrics (CAP).

Methods

A modified Delphi study was conducted, including 3 iterative survey rounds of expert opinion and statistical summary of survey responses for an a priori goal of 7–9 cognitive biases. Thirty-two cognitive biases were compiled following review of a sentinel article with corresponding PEM-specific vignettes and definitions. Using a Likert scale, participants rated the importance and frequency of each cognitive bias in physical abuse evaluations. To obtain consensus, the lowest 1/3 of the median importance scores were eliminated for each round. Median frequency scores were used as a tiebreaker between cognitive biases, if required.

Results

Thirteen of 15 (86.6%) experts completed the Delphi process, agreeing on 9 most important cognitive biases in child physical abuse evaluations: anchoring bias, ascertainment bias, confirmation bias, framing bias, fundamental attribution error, outcome bias, premature closure, unpacking principle, and visceral bias. Each cognitive bias received a final median score of 7 for importance.

Conclusions

Understanding the most important cognitive biases in child physical abuse evaluations in PEM may supplement medical education in reducing misdiagnosis of child abuse.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Child protection realities of detained juveniles in a Ghanaian correctional facility: A qualitative narrative Association between childhood sexual violence and low educational attainment among young people aged 18–24: Evidence from the 2018 Uganda violence against children survey “New cloth on an old garment” - Barriers in transforming and implementing foster care services from a developmental approach in South Africa Is ethical review a barrier to the publication of research on violence against women and children for low- and middle-income country researchers? Lay understanding and perceptions of child protection: Limited awareness of restorative principles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1