Cargando…
The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review
BACKGROUND: At times, clinical case complexity and different types of uncertainty present challenges to less experienced clinicians or the naive application of clinical guidelines where this may not be appropriate. Cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods are used to elicit, document and transfer tacit...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8903544/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35260195 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-01002-6 |
_version_ | 1784664761067110400 |
---|---|
author | Swaby, Lizzie Shu, Peiyao Hind, Daniel Sutherland, Katie |
author_facet | Swaby, Lizzie Shu, Peiyao Hind, Daniel Sutherland, Katie |
author_sort | Swaby, Lizzie |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: At times, clinical case complexity and different types of uncertainty present challenges to less experienced clinicians or the naive application of clinical guidelines where this may not be appropriate. Cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods are used to elicit, document and transfer tacit knowledge about how experts make decisions. METHODS: We conducted a methodological review to describe the use of CTA methods in understanding expert clinical decision-making. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to 2019 for primary research studies which described the use of CTA methods to understand how qualified clinicians made clinical decisions in real-world clinical settings. RESULTS: We included 81 articles (80 unique studies) from 13 countries, published from 1993 to 2019, most commonly from surgical and critical care settings. The most common aims were to understand expert decision-making in particular clinical scenarios, using expert decision-making in the development of training programmes, understanding whether decision support tools were warranted and understanding procedural variability and error identification or reduction. Critical decision method (CDM) and CTA interviews were most frequently used, with hierarchical task analysis, task knowledge structures, think-aloud protocols and other methods less commonly used. Studies used interviews, observation, think-aloud exercises, surveys, focus groups and a range of more CTA-specific methodologies such as the systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. Researchers used CTA methods to investigate routine/typical (n = 64), challenging (n = 13) or more uncommon, rare events and anomalies (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the elicitation of expert tacit knowledge using CTA has seen increasing use in clinical specialties working under challenging time pressures, complexity and uncertainty. CTA methods have great potential in the development, refinement, modification or adaptation of complex interventions, clinical protocols and practice guidelines. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID CRD42019128418. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01002-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8903544 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89035442022-03-18 The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review Swaby, Lizzie Shu, Peiyao Hind, Daniel Sutherland, Katie Pilot Feasibility Stud Review BACKGROUND: At times, clinical case complexity and different types of uncertainty present challenges to less experienced clinicians or the naive application of clinical guidelines where this may not be appropriate. Cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods are used to elicit, document and transfer tacit knowledge about how experts make decisions. METHODS: We conducted a methodological review to describe the use of CTA methods in understanding expert clinical decision-making. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to 2019 for primary research studies which described the use of CTA methods to understand how qualified clinicians made clinical decisions in real-world clinical settings. RESULTS: We included 81 articles (80 unique studies) from 13 countries, published from 1993 to 2019, most commonly from surgical and critical care settings. The most common aims were to understand expert decision-making in particular clinical scenarios, using expert decision-making in the development of training programmes, understanding whether decision support tools were warranted and understanding procedural variability and error identification or reduction. Critical decision method (CDM) and CTA interviews were most frequently used, with hierarchical task analysis, task knowledge structures, think-aloud protocols and other methods less commonly used. Studies used interviews, observation, think-aloud exercises, surveys, focus groups and a range of more CTA-specific methodologies such as the systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. Researchers used CTA methods to investigate routine/typical (n = 64), challenging (n = 13) or more uncommon, rare events and anomalies (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the elicitation of expert tacit knowledge using CTA has seen increasing use in clinical specialties working under challenging time pressures, complexity and uncertainty. CTA methods have great potential in the development, refinement, modification or adaptation of complex interventions, clinical protocols and practice guidelines. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID CRD42019128418. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01002-6. BioMed Central 2022-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8903544/ /pubmed/35260195 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-01002-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Swaby, Lizzie Shu, Peiyao Hind, Daniel Sutherland, Katie The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review |
title | The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review |
title_full | The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review |
title_fullStr | The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review |
title_short | The use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review |
title_sort | use of cognitive task analysis in clinical and health services research — a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8903544/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35260195 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-022-01002-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT swabylizzie theuseofcognitivetaskanalysisinclinicalandhealthservicesresearchasystematicreview AT shupeiyao theuseofcognitivetaskanalysisinclinicalandhealthservicesresearchasystematicreview AT hinddaniel theuseofcognitivetaskanalysisinclinicalandhealthservicesresearchasystematicreview AT sutherlandkatie theuseofcognitivetaskanalysisinclinicalandhealthservicesresearchasystematicreview AT swabylizzie useofcognitivetaskanalysisinclinicalandhealthservicesresearchasystematicreview AT shupeiyao useofcognitivetaskanalysisinclinicalandhealthservicesresearchasystematicreview AT hinddaniel useofcognitivetaskanalysisinclinicalandhealthservicesresearchasystematicreview AT sutherlandkatie useofcognitivetaskanalysisinclinicalandhealthservicesresearchasystematicreview |