Jan C Cwik, Fabienne Papen, Jan-Erik Lemke, Jürgen Margraf
Abstract
This study examines the utility of checklists in attaining more accurate diagnoses in the context of diagnostic decision-making for mental disorders. The study also aimed to replicate results from a meta-analysis indicating that there is no association between patients' gender and misdiagnoses. To this end, 475 psychotherapists were asked to judge three case vignettes describing patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder. Therapists were randomly assigned to experimental conditions in a 2 (diagnostic method: with using diagnostic checklists vs. without using diagnostic checklists) × 2 (gender: male vs. female case vignettes) between-subjects design. Multinomial logistic and linear regression analyses were used to examine the association between the usage of diagnostic checklists as well as patients' gender and diagnostic decisions. The results showed that when checklists were used, fewer incorrect co-morbid diagnoses were made, but clinicians were less likely to diagnose MDD even when the criteria were met. Additionally, checklists improved therapists' confidence with diagnostic decisions, but were not associated with estimations of patients' characteristics. As expected, there were no significant associations between gender and diagnostic decisions.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2021.
All research outputs
#6,773,425
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,657
of 30,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,462
of 415,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#184
of 420 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,068 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 415,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 420 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
