Conservatism in clinical decision-making: a concept analysis
- 1Nursing Care Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
- 2Student Research Committee, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
Abstract
Background: Conservatism is a multidimensional construct applied across disciplines; however, its meaning and role in clinical decision‑making remain insufficiently delineated, particularly in relation to defensive medicine. Such conceptual ambiguity may contribute to inappropriate clinical judgments and unnecessary interventions, including in nursing practice.
Objective: To analyse and clarify the concept of conservatism in clinical decision‑making using Walker and Avant’s method of concept analysis.
Methods: A structured search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL was conducted without time restrictions to identify literature addressing conservatism in clinical decision‑making. Of 2401 records screened, 19 sources met the eligibility criteria and contributed conceptual data to the analysis. Data were extracted and synthesized to identify defining attributes, antecedents, related concepts, and consequences.
Results: Conservatism in clinical decision-making comprised four core attributes: watchful waiting and monitoring, risk–benefit balance, shared decision-making, and reliance on scientific evidence and clinical experience. Identified antecedents included the presence of a decision-making situation and adherence to professional values and norms, with consequences observed at both patient and healthcare system levels.
Conclusions: Conservatism in clinical decision-making is an evidence-informed approach used under uncertainty when multiple clinically reasonable options are available. It involves structured monitoring, explicit assessment of benefits and harms, shared decision-making, and integration of evidence with clinical judgment. Conceptual clarification may help distinguish this approach from passive delay and defensive practice and inform future research and professional education.
Related
- Quality of Movement Assessment after ACL Reconstruction in Youth: A Clinical Framework to Guide Rehabilitation and Return-to-Sport Decision-Making
- Beyond the Sagittal Plane: The Lateral Countermovement Jump as a Clinical Tool for Return-to-Play Decision-Making and Performance Evaluation
- Reliable Detection, Unreliable Clinical Decision-making: Artificial Intelligence Models in Burn Assessment
- Procalcitonin-Guided Antimicrobial Therapy: Current Evidence for Clinical Decision-Making and Practical Limitations
- Influence of large language models on pediatricians’ clinical reasoning and decision-making process
BibTeX
@article{ghods2026conservatism,
title = {{Conservatism in clinical decision-making: a concept analysis}},
author = {Ali Asghar Ghods and Mohsen Soleimani and Ali Safdari},
journal = {International journal of nursing studies advances},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.ijnsa.2026.100704},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13721874},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Conservatism in clinical decision-making: a concept analysis
AU - Ali Asghar Ghods
AU - Mohsen Soleimani
AU - Ali Safdari
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/11
JO - International journal of nursing studies advances
DO - 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2026.100704
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13721874
AB - Background: Conservatism is a multidimensional construct applied across disciplines; however, its meaning and role in clinical decision‑making remain insufficiently delineated, particularly in relation to defensive medicine. Such conceptual ambiguity may contribute to inappropriate clinical judgments and unnecessary interventions, including in nursing practice. Objective: To analyse and clarify the concept of conservatism in clinical decision‑making using Walker and Avant’s method of concept analysis. Methods: A structured search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL was conducted without time restrictions to identify literature addressing conservatism in clinical decision‑making. Of 2401 records screened, 19 sources met the eligibility criteria and contributed conceptual data to the analysis. Data were extracted and synthesized to identify defining attributes, antecedents, related concepts, and consequences. Results: Conservatism in clinical decision-making comprised four core attributes: watchful waiting and monitoring, risk–benefit balance, shared decision-making, and reliance on scientific evidence and clinical experience. Identified antecedents included the presence of a decision-making situation and adherence to professional values and norms, with consequences observed at both patient and healthcare system levels. Conclusions: Conservatism in clinical decision-making is an evidence-informed approach used under uncertainty when multiple clinically reasonable options are available. It involves structured monitoring, explicit assessment of benefits and harms, shared decision-making, and integration of evidence with clinical judgment. Conceptual clarification may help distinguish this approach from passive delay and defensive practice and inform future research and professional education.
SN - 2666-142X
ER -