Internal and Emergency Medicine

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 195–203 | Cite as

Heuristics: foundations for a novel approach to medical decision making

  • Nicolai Bodemer
  • Yaniv Hanoch
  • Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos
CE - COCHRANE'S CORNER

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.

Keywords

Medical decision making Heuristics Rules of thumb Decision tools Bounded rationality 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 1.
    American College of Emergency Physicians (2014) Definition of emergency medicine http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=29164
  2. 2.
    Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62:451–482. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kahneman D (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev 93:1449–1475. doi: 10.1257/000282803322655392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 7:97–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elstein AS (1999) Heuristics and biases: selected errors in clinical reasoning. Acad Med 74:791–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hall KH (2002) Reviewing intuitive decision-making and uncertainty: the implications for medical education. Med Educ 36:216–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klein JG (2005) Five pitfalls in decisions about diagnosis and prescribing. BMJ 330:781–784CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, ABC Research Group (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gigerenzer G, Selten R (2001) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev 63:129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hertwig R, Pachur T, Kurzenhäuser S (2005) Judgments of risk frequencies: tests of possible cognitive mechanisms. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 31:621–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gigerenzer G, Hug K (1992) Domain-specific reasoning: social contracts, cheating, and perspective change. Cognition 43:127–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, Pachur T (eds) (2011) Heuristics: the foundations of adaptive behavior. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldstein D, Gigerenzer G (2002) Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. Psychol Rev 109:75–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dawes RM (1979) The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. Am Psychol 34:571–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 97–118Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gigerenzer G, Brighton H (2009) Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Topics Cogn Sci 1:107–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katsikopoulos KV (2011) Psychological heuristics for making inferences: definition, performance, and the emerging theory and practice. Decis Anal 8:10–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marewski J, Pohl R, Vitouch O (2010) Recognition-based judgments and decisions: introduction to the special issue (Vol. 1). Judg Dec Mak 5:207–215Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Newell BR, Shanks DR (2004) On the role of recognition in decision making. J Exp Psych 30:923–935Google Scholar
  23. 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 642–668Google Scholar
  24. 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 67–89Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Knight F (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 17:257–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Feufel MA, Bodemer N (2014) Nudging, social marketing, empowerment: When to use which to improve health decisions? Manuscript under reviewGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. 30.
    McDonald CJ (1996) Medical heuristics: the silent adjudicators of clinical practice. Ann Intern Med 124:56–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Groopman J (2007) How doctors think. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Green L, Mehr DR (1997) What alters physicians’ decisions to admit to the coronary care unit? J Fam Pract 45:219–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Super G (1984) START: A triage training module. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport BeachGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Luan S, Schooler L, Gigerenzer G (2011) A signal detection analysis of fast-and-frugal trees. Psychol Rev 118:316–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Martignon L, Katsikopoulos KV, Woike J (2008) Categorization with limited resources: a family of simple heuristics. J Math Psychol 52:352–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gigerenzer G (2014) Risk savvy: how to make good decisions. Viking, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 213–232Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jenny MA, Pachur T, Williams SL, Becker E, Margraf J (2013) Simple rules for detecting depression. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mata J, Frank R, Gigerenzer G (2014) Symptom recognition of heart attack and stroke in nine European countries: a representative study. Health Expect 17:376–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Clausing DP, Katsikopoulos KV (2008) Rationality in systems engineering: beyond calculation or political action. Syst Eng 11:309–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Marewski J, Gigerenzer G (2012) Heuristic decision making in medicine. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 14:77–89PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SIMI 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolai Bodemer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yaniv Hanoch
    • 3
  • Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos
    • 2
  1. 1.Harding Center for Risk LiteracyBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Center for Adaptive Behavior and CognitionMax Planck Institute for Human DevelopmentBerlinGermany
  3. 3.School of PsychologyPlymouth UniversityPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations