Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T05:28:25.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is clinical decision making in stepped-care psychological services influenced by heuristics and biases?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2023

Benjamin Michael ,
Stephen Kellett Open the ORCID record for Stephen Kellett [Opens in a new window]  and
Jaime Delgadillo
Benjamin Michael*
Affiliation:
Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
Stephen Kellett
Affiliation:
Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom Clinical and Applied Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
Jaime Delgadillo
Affiliation:
Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom Clinical and Applied Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author. Email: benjamin.michael@nhs.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The manner in which heuristics and biases influence clinical decision-making has not been fully investigated and the methods previously used have been rudimentary.

Aims:

Two studies were conducted to design and test a trial-based methodology to assess the influence of heuristics and biases; specifically, with a focus on how practitioners make decisions about suitability for therapy, treatment fidelity and treatment continuation in psychological services.

Method:

Study 1 (N=12) used a qualitative design to develop two clinical vignette-based tasks that had the aim of triggering heuristics and biases during clinical decision making. Study 2 (N=133) then used a randomized crossover experimental design and involved psychological wellbeing practitioners (PWPs) working in the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme in England. Vignettes evoked heuristics (anchoring and halo effects) and biased responses away from normative decisions. Participants completed validated measures of decision-making style. The two decision-making tasks from the vignettes yielded a clinical decision score (CDS; higher scores being more consistent with normative/unbiased decisions).

Results:

Experimental manipulations used to evoke heuristics did not significantly bias CDS. Decision-making style was not consistently associated with CDS. Clinical decisions were generally normative, although with some variability.

Conclusions:

Clinical decision-making can be ‘noisy’ (i.e. variable across practitioners and occasions), but there was little evidence that this variability was systematically influenced by anchoring and halo effects in a stepped-care context.

Keywords

Cognitive biasesDecision makingImproving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programmeInterpretation biasesJudgement biasPsychological Wellbeing Practitioner
Type
Main
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , July 2023 , pp. 362 - 373
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ægisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., Nichols, C. N., Lampropoulos, G. K., Walker, B. S., Cohen, G., & Rush, J. D. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 341–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005285875 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, J. S., Baik, S. Y., Bowers, B., Tidjani, B., Jacobson, C. J., & Susman, J. (2010). Conditions that influence a primary care clinician’s decision to refer patients for depression care. Rehabilitation Nursing, 35, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2048-7940.2010.tb00286.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berman, N. C., Tung, E. S., Matheny, N., Cohen, I. G., & Wilhelm, S. (2016). Clinical decision making regarding suicide risk: effect of patient and clinician age. Death studies, 40, 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2015.1128498 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bower, P., & Gilbody, S. (2005). Stepped care in psychological therapies: access, effectiveness, and efficiency: narrative literature review. British Journal of Psychiatry, 186, 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.186.1.11 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Psychological Society. (2017). Ethics Guidelines for Internet-Mediated Research. Retrieved from https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/beta.bps.org.uk/files/Policy%20-%20Files/Ethics%20Guidelines%20for%20Internet-%20mediated%20Research%20(2017).pdf Google Scholar
Clark, D. M. (2019). NHS England: IAPT at 10: Achievements and Challenges. Retrieved from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/blog/iapt-at-10-achievements-and-challenges/ Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (revised edn). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Delgadillo, J., Gellatly, J., & Stephenson-Bellwood, S. (2015). Decision making in stepped care: how do therapists decide whether to prolong treatment or not? Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 43, 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135246581300091X CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delgadillo, J., Huey, D., Bennett, H., & McMillan, D. (2017). Case complexity as a guide for psychological treatment selection. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85, 835–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000231 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.10.1257/089533005775196732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garb, H. N. (1996). The representativeness and past-behavior heuristics in clinical judgment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.27.3.272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garb, H. N. (2005). Clinical judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143810 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gladwin, C. H. (1989). Ethnographic Decision Tree Modelling (vol. 19). Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grove, W. M. (2005). Clinical versus statistical prediction: The contribution of Paul E. Meehl. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 1233–1243. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20179 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical–statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, K., Shih, S. I., & Mohammed, S. (2016). The development and validation of the rational and intuitive decision styles scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1132426 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1988). The meaning of difference: gender theory, postmodernism, and psychology. American Psychologist, 43(6), 455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.6.455 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyler, S. E., Williams, J. B., & Spitzer, R. L. (1982). Reliability in the DSM-III field trials: interview v case summary. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 1275–1278. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1982.04290110035006 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. London: William Collins.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellett, S., Simmonds-Buckley, M., Limon, E., Hague, J., Hughes, L., Stride, C., & Millings, A. (2021). Defining the assessment and treatment competencies to deliver low-intensity cognitive behavior therapy: a multi-center validation study. Behavior Therapy, 52, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2020.01.006 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2011). Common Mental Health Problems: Identification and Pathways to Care [CG123]. Retrieved from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG123/chapter/1-Guidance#stepped-care Google Scholar
Pilgrim, D., Rogers, A., Clarke, S., & Clark, W. (1997). Entering psychological treatment: decision-making factors for GPs and service users. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 11, 313–323. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561829709034128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qualtrics (2002). Retrieved from: https://www.qualtrics.com/uk Google Scholar
Ribeiro, J. D., Huang, X., Fox, K. R., & Franklin, J. C. (2018). Depression and hopelessness as risk factors for suicide ideation, attempts and death: meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. British Journal of Psychiatry, 212, 279–286. doi: 10.1192/bjp.2018.27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shafran, R., Myles-Hooton, P., Bennett, S., & Öst, L. G. (2021). The concept and definition of low intensity cognitive behaviour therapy. Behavour Research and Therapy, 138, 103803. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2021.103803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shanahan, D. R. (2015). A living document: reincarnating the research article. Trials, 16, 151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0666-5 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sigel, P., & Leiper, R. (2004). GP views of their management and referral of psychological problems: a qualitative study. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 77, 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1348/1476083041839394 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spengler, P. M., & Strohmer, D. C. (1994). Clinical judgmental biases: the moderating roles of counselor cognitive complexity and counselor client preferences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.41.1.8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavrou, S., Cape, J., & Barker, C. (2009). Decisions about referrals for psychological therapies: a matched-patient qualitative study. British Journal of General Practice, 59, e289–298. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp09X454089 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1275.10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UCL (2015). National Curriculum for the Education of Psychological Well-being Practitioners (3rd edn). Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/research/cehp/research-groups/core/pwp-review/docs/PWPREVIE_-curriculum Google Scholar
Visintini, R., Ubbiali, A., Donati, D., Chiorri, C., & Maffei, C. (2007). Referral to group psychotherapy: a retrospective study on patients’ personality features associated with clinicians’ judgments. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 57, 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijgp.2007.57.4.515 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Michael et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Michael et al. supplementary material(File)
File 44.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Michael et al. supplementary material

Appendices A-G

Download Michael et al. supplementary material(File)
File 8 MB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.