众包诊断?探索群体诊断的规模和类型的准确性:一项实验研究

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016695
Jonathan Sherbino, Matt Sibbald, Geoffrey Norman, Andrew LoGiudice, Amy Keuhl, Mark Lee, Sandra Monteiro
{"title":"众包诊断?探索群体诊断的规模和类型的准确性:一项实验研究","authors":"Jonathan Sherbino, Matt Sibbald, Geoffrey Norman, Andrew LoGiudice, Amy Keuhl, Mark Lee, Sandra Monteiro","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The consultation process, where a clinician seeks an opinion from another clinician, is foundational in medicine. However, the effectiveness of group diagnosis has not been studied. Objective To compare individual diagnosis to group diagnosis on two dimensions: group size (n=3 or 6) and group process (interactive or artificial groups). Methodology Thirty-six internal or emergency medicine residents participated in the study. Initially, each resident worked through four written cases on their own, providing a primary diagnosis and a differential diagnosis. Next, participants formed into groups of three. Using a videoconferencing platform, they worked through four additional cases, collectively providing a single primary diagnosis and differential diagnosis. The process was repeated using a group of six with four new cases. Cases were all counterbalanced. Retrospectively, nominal (ie, artificial) groups were formed by aggregating individual participant data into subgroups of three and six and analytically computing scores. Presence of the correct diagnosis as primary diagnosis or included in the differential diagnosis, as well as the number of diagnoses mentioned, was calculated for all conditions. Means were compared using analysis of variance. Results For both authentic and nominal groups, the diagnostic accuracy of group diagnosis was superior to individual for both the primary diagnosis and differential diagnosis. However, there was no improvement in diagnostic accuracy when comparing a group of three to a group of six. Interactive and nominal groups were equivalent; however, this may be an artefact of the method used to combine data. Conclusions Group diagnosis improves diagnostic accuracy. However, a larger group is not necessarily superior to a smaller group. In this study, interactive group discussion does not result in improved diagnostic accuracy. Data are available upon reasonable request.","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crowdsourcing a diagnosis? Exploring the accuracy of the size and type of group diagnosis: an experimental study\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Sherbino, Matt Sibbald, Geoffrey Norman, Andrew LoGiudice, Amy Keuhl, Mark Lee, Sandra Monteiro\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016695\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background The consultation process, where a clinician seeks an opinion from another clinician, is foundational in medicine. However, the effectiveness of group diagnosis has not been studied. Objective To compare individual diagnosis to group diagnosis on two dimensions: group size (n=3 or 6) and group process (interactive or artificial groups). Methodology Thirty-six internal or emergency medicine residents participated in the study. Initially, each resident worked through four written cases on their own, providing a primary diagnosis and a differential diagnosis. Next, participants formed into groups of three. Using a videoconferencing platform, they worked through four additional cases, collectively providing a single primary diagnosis and differential diagnosis. The process was repeated using a group of six with four new cases. Cases were all counterbalanced. Retrospectively, nominal (ie, artificial) groups were formed by aggregating individual participant data into subgroups of three and six and analytically computing scores. Presence of the correct diagnosis as primary diagnosis or included in the differential diagnosis, as well as the number of diagnoses mentioned, was calculated for all conditions. Means were compared using analysis of variance. Results For both authentic and nominal groups, the diagnostic accuracy of group diagnosis was superior to individual for both the primary diagnosis and differential diagnosis. However, there was no improvement in diagnostic accuracy when comparing a group of three to a group of six. Interactive and nominal groups were equivalent; however, this may be an artefact of the method used to combine data. Conclusions Group diagnosis improves diagnostic accuracy. However, a larger group is not necessarily superior to a smaller group. In this study, interactive group discussion does not result in improved diagnostic accuracy. Data are available upon reasonable request.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016695\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2023-016695","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 一名临床医生向另一名临床医生征求意见的会诊过程是医学的基础。然而,小组诊断的有效性尚未得到研究。目的 比较个人诊断和小组诊断在两个方面的效果:小组规模(3 人或 6 人)和小组过程(互动小组或人工小组)。方法 36 名内科或急诊科住院医师参与研究。首先,每位住院医师独立完成四个书面病例,提供主要诊断和鉴别诊断。接下来,参与者组成三人小组。通过视频会议平台,他们又研究了四个病例,共同提供了一个主要诊断和鉴别诊断。六人小组用四个新病例重复这一过程。所有病例都是平衡的。通过将参与者的个人数据汇总到三人和六人分组中并分析计算分数,形成了名义(即人为)分组。计算所有情况下作为主要诊断或包括在鉴别诊断中的正确诊断的存在情况,以及所提及诊断的数量。通过方差分析对平均值进行比较。结果 无论是真实组还是名义组,在主要诊断和鉴别诊断方面,集体诊断的诊断准确性都优于个人诊断。然而,三人小组与六人小组相比,诊断准确率没有提高。互动组和名义组的诊断结果相当,但这可能是合并数据的方法造成的。结论 分组诊断可提高诊断准确性。然而,较大的小组并不一定优于较小的小组。在这项研究中,互动式小组讨论并不能提高诊断的准确性。如有合理要求,可提供相关数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Crowdsourcing a diagnosis? Exploring the accuracy of the size and type of group diagnosis: an experimental study
Background The consultation process, where a clinician seeks an opinion from another clinician, is foundational in medicine. However, the effectiveness of group diagnosis has not been studied. Objective To compare individual diagnosis to group diagnosis on two dimensions: group size (n=3 or 6) and group process (interactive or artificial groups). Methodology Thirty-six internal or emergency medicine residents participated in the study. Initially, each resident worked through four written cases on their own, providing a primary diagnosis and a differential diagnosis. Next, participants formed into groups of three. Using a videoconferencing platform, they worked through four additional cases, collectively providing a single primary diagnosis and differential diagnosis. The process was repeated using a group of six with four new cases. Cases were all counterbalanced. Retrospectively, nominal (ie, artificial) groups were formed by aggregating individual participant data into subgroups of three and six and analytically computing scores. Presence of the correct diagnosis as primary diagnosis or included in the differential diagnosis, as well as the number of diagnoses mentioned, was calculated for all conditions. Means were compared using analysis of variance. Results For both authentic and nominal groups, the diagnostic accuracy of group diagnosis was superior to individual for both the primary diagnosis and differential diagnosis. However, there was no improvement in diagnostic accuracy when comparing a group of three to a group of six. Interactive and nominal groups were equivalent; however, this may be an artefact of the method used to combine data. Conclusions Group diagnosis improves diagnostic accuracy. However, a larger group is not necessarily superior to a smaller group. In this study, interactive group discussion does not result in improved diagnostic accuracy. Data are available upon reasonable request.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
期刊最新文献
Development of the Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) conceptual framework to monitor and improve the performance of primary care for people living with chronic conditions. Cluster randomised evaluation of a training intervention to increase the use of statistical process control charts for hospitals in England: making data count. Role of communicating diagnostic uncertainty in the safety-netting process: insights from a vignette study. Integration and connection: the key to effectiveness of large-scale pharmacist-led medication reviews? Reducing administrative burden by implementing a core set of quality indicators in the ICU: a multicentre longitudinal intervention study.
×
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