Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Heuristics: foundations for a novel approach to medical decision making

  • CE - COCHRANE'S CORNER
  • Published:
Internal and Emergency Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Medical decision-making is a complex process that often takes place during uncertainty, that is, when knowledge, time, and resources are limited. How can we ensure good decisions? We present research on heuristics—simple rules of thumb—and discuss how medical decision-making can benefit from these tools. We challenge the common view that heuristics are only second-best solutions by showing that they can be more accur ate, faster, and easier to apply in comparison to more complex strategies. Using the example of fast-and-frugal decision trees, we illustrate how heuristics can be studied and implemented in the medical context. Finally, we suggest how a heuristic-friendly culture supports the study and application of heuristics as complementary strategies to existing decision rules.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American College of Emergency Physicians (2014) Definition of emergency medicine http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=29164

  2. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62:451–482. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kahneman D (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev 93:1449–1475. doi:10.1257/000282803322655392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Bornstein BH, Emler AC (2001) Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors’ decision-making biases. J Eval Clin Pract 7:97–107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Elstein AS (1999) Heuristics and biases: selected errors in clinical reasoning. Acad Med 74:791–794

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hall KH (2002) Reviewing intuitive decision-making and uncertainty: the implications for medical education. Med Educ 36:216–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Klein JG (2005) Five pitfalls in decisions about diagnosis and prescribing. BMJ 330:781–784

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, ABC Research Group (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gigerenzer G, Selten R (2001) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  12. Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev 63:129–138. doi:10.1037/h0042769

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hertwig R, Pachur T, Kurzenhäuser S (2005) Judgments of risk frequencies: tests of possible cognitive mechanisms. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 31:621–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gigerenzer G, Hug K (1992) Domain-specific reasoning: social contracts, cheating, and perspective change. Cognition 43:127–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, Pachur T (eds) (2011) Heuristics: the foundations of adaptive behavior. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goldstein D, Gigerenzer G (2002) Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. Psychol Rev 109:75–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dawes RM (1979) The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. Am Psychol 34:571–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Czerlinski J, Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1999) How good are simple heuristics? In: Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, ABC Research Group (eds) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 97–118

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gigerenzer G, Brighton H (2009) Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Topics Cogn Sci 1:107–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Katsikopoulos KV (2011) Psychological heuristics for making inferences: definition, performance, and the emerging theory and practice. Decis Anal 8:10–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Marewski J, Pohl R, Vitouch O (2010) Recognition-based judgments and decisions: introduction to the special issue (Vol. 1). Judg Dec Mak 5:207–215

    Google Scholar 

  22. Newell BR, Shanks DR (2004) On the role of recognition in decision making. J Exp Psych 30:923–935

    Google Scholar 

  23. DeMiguel V, Garlappi L, Uppal R (2011) Optimal versus naive diversification: how inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy. In: Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, Pachur T (eds) Heuristics: the foundations of adaptive behavior. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 642–668

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hohenemser CR, Kates W, Slovic P (1985) A casual taxonomy. In: Kates RW, Hohenemser C, Kasperson JX (eds) Perilous progress: managing the hazards of technology. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 67–89

    Google Scholar 

  25. Knight F (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  26. Meder B, Le Lec F, Osman M (2013) Decision making in uncertain times: what can cognitive and decision sciences say about or learn from economic crises? Trends Cog Sci 17:257–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Politi MC, Han PKJ, Col NF (2007) Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Dec Mak 27:681–695. doi:10.1177/0272989X07307270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Feufel MA, Bodemer N (2014) Nudging, social marketing, empowerment: When to use which to improve health decisions? Manuscript under review

  29. Lawrence L (2013). Decision-making rules for diagnosing PE may save lives. Retrieved July 20th, 2014 http://www.acpinternist.org/archives/2013/03/pulmonology.htm

  30. McDonald CJ (1996) Medical heuristics: the silent adjudicators of clinical practice. Ann Intern Med 124:56–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Groopman J (2007) How doctors think. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  32. Green L, Mehr DR (1997) What alters physicians’ decisions to admit to the coronary care unit? J Fam Pract 45:219–226

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Super G (1984) START: A triage training module. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach

    Google Scholar 

  34. Luan S, Schooler L, Gigerenzer G (2011) A signal detection analysis of fast-and-frugal trees. Psychol Rev 118:316–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Martignon L, Katsikopoulos KV, Woike J (2008) Categorization with limited resources: a family of simple heuristics. J Math Psychol 52:352–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gigerenzer G (2014) Risk savvy: how to make good decisions. Viking, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hertwig R, Todd PM (2003) More is not always better: the benefits of cognitive limits. In: Hardman D, Macchi L (eds) Thinking: psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgment and decision making. Wiley, Chichester, pp 213–232

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jenny MA, Pachur T, Williams SL, Becker E, Margraf J (2013) Simple rules for detecting depression. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2:149–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mata J, Frank R, Gigerenzer G (2014) Symptom recognition of heart attack and stroke in nine European countries: a representative study. Health Expect 17:376–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Clausing DP, Katsikopoulos KV (2008) Rationality in systems engineering: beyond calculation or political action. Syst Eng 11:309–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Marewski J, Gigerenzer G (2012) Heuristic decision making in medicine. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 14:77–89

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Anita Todd for editing the paper. We thank Giovanni Casazza and Giorgio Costantino for providing valuable feedback along the whole process of writing this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Berlin, Germany

    Nicolai Bodemer

  2. Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Nicolai Bodemer & Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos

  3. School of Psychology, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK

    Yaniv Hanoch

Authors
  1. Nicolai Bodemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yaniv Hanoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolai Bodemer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bodemer, N., Hanoch, Y. & Katsikopoulos, K.V. Heuristics: foundations for a novel approach to medical decision making. Intern Emerg Med 10, 195–203 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-014-1143-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-014-1143-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation