Does it in fact improve outcomes? Naively I would bet that people tend to go with the diagnosis that fits their proclivities, positive or negative, and therefore getting one diagnosis is actually LESS biased than two.
Of course, if they instead go for the diagnosis that better fits their subjective evidence, then it would likely help.
That is an interesting thought. I tried looking it up on Google Scholar, but I do not see any studies on the subject. I also expect that a norm of seeking two diagnoses would incentivize doctors to prioritize accurate diagnosis. In the long run, I am more confident that it would benefit patient care.
Does it in fact improve outcomes? Naively I would bet that people tend to go with the diagnosis that fits their proclivities, positive or negative, and therefore getting one diagnosis is actually LESS biased than two.
Of course, if they instead go for the diagnosis that better fits their subjective evidence, then it would likely help.
That is an interesting thought. I tried looking it up on Google Scholar, but I do not see any studies on the subject. I also expect that a norm of seeking two diagnoses would incentivize doctors to prioritize accurate diagnosis. In the long run, I am more confident that it would benefit patient care.