Chapter 1: General Introduction to Healthcare Uncertainty
Georgina C. Stephens and Michelle D. Lazarus
Learning Objectives
- Define the sources of uncertainty present in healthcare contexts.
- Identify the spectrum of problems (i.e. ‘issues’) relating to uncertainty in healthcare.
- Reflect on sources of uncertainty relevant to your healthcare experiences and/or role.
Humans crave certainty (Anderson et al., 2019; Lazarus, 2023) yet we are constantly challenged to balance certainty with uncertainty within and across our personal and professional lives. The manner in which we perceive and respond to uncertainty has received considerable research attention and is often referred to as uncertainty tolerance in contemporary literature (Hillen et al., 2017; Strout et al., 2018). An overview of the uncertainty tolerance construct is provided in Video 1.1 (read the transcript).
Video 1.1 Uncertainty Tolerance: How to Survive and Thrive Through the Unexpected by Michelle Lazarus © Monash University. All Rights Reserved.
Uncertainty tolerance is a field of great interest within the healthcare sector (Han et al., 2011; Hancock & Mattick, 2020; Strout et al., 2018). Learners may think that healthcare seems highly objective, unambiguous, precise, and certain. The reality is that uncertainty arises frequently in healthcare practice in a variety of forms. For this reason, future healthcare professionals can benefit from learning to effectively and appropriately manage uncertainty in order to optimally care for patients, and to support their own wellbeing.
There is a fundamental challenge when discussing the topic of uncertainty tolerance. The terminology in the literature which describes uncertainty, and how people perceive and respond to it, varies across research disciplines and over time (Budner, 1962; Frenkel-Brunswik, 1949; Hillen et al., 2017; Strout et al., 2018). For example, tolerance of/for ambiguity is another common term used in the literature (Budner, 1962; Furnham & Marks, 2013; Geller et al., 1993). Some of the history of uncertainty tolerance research and the varied terminology used by researchers is described in Video 1.2 (read the transcript).
Video 1.2 Uncertainty Tolerance: An Overview of Research and Terminology by Georgina Stephens © Monash University. All Rights Reserved.
There is much still to be learned about the topic of uncertainty tolerance, but there are some key principles that are more ‘settled‘. In other words, there is a large body of longitudinal evidence across multiple fields which illustrates core understandings of the uncertainty tolerance construct. There are also areas, at least at the time of writing this handbook, that are still being investigated. While the settled areas of uncertainty tolerance form the basis of much of this handbook, emerging and debated areas of uncertainty tolerance research will also be mentioned so that educators may gain an understanding of where the field is currently and where it may be headed.
The diverse definitions in the literature (see Video 1.2) drove Hillen et al. (2017) to undertake extensive work to develop clearer distinctions between the terms uncertainty and ambiguity. Hillen et al. (2017) (opens in new tab) defined uncertainty as a perception of not knowing, and ambiguity as a property of information that can stimulate uncertainty. However, ambiguity is not the only possible cause of uncertainty (see Case Study 1.1).
Case Study 1.1a: Sources of Uncertainty
Case Study 1.1a: Sources of Healthcare Uncertainty, which is hypothetical, introduces some of the ways in which those involved with healthcare (including healthcare professionals and patients) may encounter uncertainty. While this case describes many sources of uncertainty, it does not discuss them all. Subsequent chapters will further describe and expand on the reasons underpinning why a person experiences uncertainty, which can be broadly referred to as sources or stimuli of uncertainty (Han et al., 2011; Hillen et al., 2017). Click through the slides below to learn more.
Case Study 1.1a illustrates how uncertainty can be experienced both by patients and healthcare professionals (Han et al., 2011). In this case, Mei, Cameron, Max, and Priya all experience uncertainty. While there are commonalities across these uncertainties, the underlying reasons for their uncertainty differ.
Researchers and healthcare professionals have classified sources of uncertainty in different ways (Han et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2020; Scott et al., 2023). In their work on uncertainty in healthcare, Han et al. (2011) (opens in new tab) identify three primary sources of uncertainty: probability, ambiguity, and complexity.
Probability
For Han et al. (2011, p. 832), the term probability refers to the ‘randomness’ or ‘indeterminacy’ of future outcomes. Others have referred to this as aleatoric uncertainty (Simpkin & Armstrong, 2019). Regardless of the term used, the inability to predict what lies ahead is a source of great uncertainty. An example of probability, or aleatoric uncertainty, related to Mei’s case is the difficulty in predicting how an individual will recover from COVID-19 (Sudre et al., 2021). Some people recover quickly and don’t experience lasting symptoms, whereas others experience persistent symptoms that last for weeks, months, or longer. Although some potential risk factors for developing long COVID have been identified (e.g., severity of the acute infection, age, and sex), at the time of writing this handbook, it is still difficult to predict the likelihood of long COVID on an individual basis.
Note that the word probability is used in different ways across the literature. For example, within the field of sustainability, it refers to quantifiable uncertainty and/or risk and therefore does not include randomness or indeterminacy (Funtowicz, 2020).
Ambiguity
Ambiguity is generally used to imply a sense of vagueness and of being open to multiple interpretations. Han et al. (2011, p. 833) provide a definition for ambiguity which differs slightly from the term’s general use, defining ambiguity as a property of information that can stimulate uncertainty due to a ‘lack of reliability, credibility or adequacy’. Healthcare ambiguity can arise in many different ways, including from the scientific basis of healthcare (e.g., insufficient evidence), as well as patients, health professionals, and their interactions. Related to patients, ambiguity may arise from imprecise or conflicting information (e.g., difficulty recalling the onset of subtle symptoms or differences between their own descriptions and the reports of their family) or from missing information, such as may occur when patients move practices or when handover between services or professionals is incomplete. Lack of information related to gaps in a healthcare professionals’ knowledge and experience, and how this shapes their patient assessment, also aligns with Han et al.’s (2011) definition of ambiguity.
A further form of ambiguity that may arise during communication in healthcare is semantic ambiguity, or where words have more than one possible meaning (Degani & Tokowicz, 2010). For example, ‘vagina’ is defined anatomically as the part of the genital tract that connects to the uterus to the vulva, sometimes known as the ‘birth canal’. However, ‘vagina’ is commonly used in lay speech to refer to the vulva (i.e., external genitalia). Hence a patient describing a problem with their ‘vagina’ could be referring to the anatomical vagina, or part of their vulva.
In relation to Case Study 1.1a, both long COVID and fibromyalgia are conditions that are currently relatively poorly understood, and have been associated with stigma (Clauw, 2014; Michelen et al., 2021; Quintner, 2020). COVID-19 is a relatively new condition, and thus the time to build an evidence base has been limited. Although guidelines exist for diagnosing fibromyalgia, there are currently no laboratory or imaging studies which can do so definitively. So rather than, for example, tissue diagnoses used to definitively diagnose types of cancers or imaging studies used to visualise damaged arteries, diagnosis of fibromyalgia relies on the healthcare professional and patient to analyse the types, locations, and frequency of symptoms against a checklist, as well as the patient’s experiences. Research into optimal management of fibromyalgia is ongoing (Clauw, 2014), so although the present management of fibromyalgia may stimulate ambiguity, this may change if more specific treatments are identified. In addition, ambiguity may arise when research studies provide seemingly contradictory results (e.g., one study identifying a statistically significant finding supporting one intervention over placebo, but another study not identifying any difference) or when researchers interpret results in different ways.
Aspects of Han et al.’s (2011) definition correspond with elements of epistemic uncertainty, which Simpkin & Armstrong (2019, p. 2586) describe as ‘relating to incomplete knowledge’. This may be caused by limitations in scientific evidence or in an individual’s capacity to ‘access and process’ knowledge. Simpkin & Armstrong (2019) describe that uncertain scenarios in healthcare are typically combinations of both aleatoric uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty, suggesting that healthcare uncertainty is a complex phenomenon.
Complexity
Han et al. (2011) include complexity as a third source of uncertainty in their classification. The term complexity refers to ‘aspects of the phenomenon… [perceived as uncertain] that make it difficult to comprehend’, and is caused by multiple elements interacting in a non-linear fashion that impact a person’s condition or their overall health (Han et al., 2011, p. 833). It may be particularly prevalent in healthcare because of the inherent complexity of the human body, and the interrelated nature of the healthcare system.
The interconnectedness of the human body means that many health conditions, and their management, can impact multiple bodily systems. Furthermore, many parts of the world are experiencing population ageing (World Health Organization, 2022), which increases the likelihood of individuals simultaneously developing multiple health conditions that, in combination, generate unique challenges when compared to each condition on its own. The presence of multiple conditions raises the possibility that the optimal treatment for one condition may interact with or negatively impact the optimal treatment for another condition in the context of the individual. For example, some classes of medications used in the management of mental health conditions have metabolic side effects (e.g., weight gain and impaired glucose tolerance), which can impact or even predispose to the development of diabetes mellitus. The complexity stemming from multiple conditions can make clinical research more challenging. Historically, research supporting evidence-based medicine typically focusses on single conditions and often excludes groups of people with concomitant health conditions. Therefore, the evidence for caring for people with multiple conditions, and how the treatments interact, is often less established.
One element of complexity seen in Mei’s case (Case Study 1.1a) is a possible co-occurrence of multiple conditions (i.e., fibromyalgia and long COVID). There is diagnostic uncertainty as to whether Mei has long COVID alongside fibromyalgia and, if so, whether this may have exacerbated her symptoms such as fatigue and brain fog. Elements of Mei’s case also raise the possibility of a mental health condition (e.g., she has been feeling ‘off’ since Briony’s birth, and the fact she needed to recover from a perineal tear could suggest the possibility of post-natal depression), which does not appear to have been explored by the healthcare professionals she has seen. The potential diagnosis of a mental health condition adds further complexity to Mei’s case – especially because such conditions may be related to long COVID, fibromyalgia or distinct from both (Häuser & Fitzcharles, 2018; Davis et al., 2023). Complexity is discussed further in Chapter 3, with the description of conceptual modelling of uncertainty tolerance.
Case Study 1.1b: Issues of Healthcare Uncertainty
In addition to classifying the sources of uncertainty, in terms of probability, ambiguity, and complexity, Han et al. (2011) describe the areas in which specific issues of uncertainty in healthcare can arise, identifying these as ‘scientific (data-centered)’, ‘practical (system-centered)’, and ‘personal (patient-centered)’ [sic]. Click through the slides in Case Study 1.1b to explore these issues further.
Han et al. (2011, p. 835) classify issues (i.e., specific problems) of healthcare uncertainty into a taxonomy, wherein the issues range from those that are ‘disease-centered’ to those that are ‘system- and patient-centered’. At the disease-centred end are issues related to the scientific aspects of healthcare, such as ‘diagnosis’, ‘prognosis’, and ‘treatment recommendations’. Midway along the taxonomy are issues related to healthcare systems, such as ‘structures of care’ and ‘processes of care’. At the other end are ‘psycho-social’ and ‘existential’ issues experienced by patients.
Case Study 1.1b illustrates how multiple issues, or factors, can contribute uncertainty for patients, for their related social network, and for healthcare professionals. Although Mei is recommended treatments for her fibromyalgia, she experiences challenges relating to the healthcare system, because the length of the waiting list for professionals, such as a psychologist, is unknown. Where waiting lists are already long, people seeking care who have more acute or severe (e.g., life-threatening) conditions could be prioritised for such care. Extended waiting lists can result in people with initially less severe problems deteriorating while on a waiting list, necessitating more complex or radical management when they are able to access a healthcare professional (Aitken & Watters, 2022). Beyond waiting lists, access to healthcare services may be impacted by social and economic factors, such as residential location, employment, caring responsibilities, insurance status, and finances in general (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022), leading to uncertainties for both the patient and the healthcare professionals.
Differences in health beliefs and communication preferences can also introduce uncertainty. When Mei sees Cameron after visiting the long COVID clinic, Cameron’s communication approach focusses on the perceived facts of the situation (i.e., comparing Mei’s symptoms to diagnostic criteria and conveying alternative diagnoses that have been effectively ruled out) and practical next steps (i.e., referrals to a physiotherapist and psychologist). Cameron communicates some of the uncertainty related to Mei’s case (e.g., describing how the effectiveness of management strategies varies for different people). However, Mei’s communication preferences, including how much uncertainty relating to her case she would like to know about, are unexplored. Differences between Mei’s communication preferences and how Cameron decides to communicate could result in Mei feeling more uncertain and influence how she responds to uncertainty about her condition.
This case suggests that both Mei and Cameron understand the potential benefits of cognitive behavioural therapy for treating fibromyalgia, while Mike does not. This could impact Mei’s relationship with Mike and her wellbeing and could lead her to make decisions about her healthcare and returning to her job that she might not make if she and Mike had similar health beliefs. Mei’s interest in trying acupuncture to manage her symptoms suggests an openness to complementary and alternative medicines. Depending on Cameron’s and Mike’s views on such medicines, this could introduce further uncertainties to their interactions.
Summary
From initial presentation and diagnosis through to management and prognosis, uncertainty can arise across all stages of the healthcare pathway and can be experienced by patients and by healthcare professionals alike. When considering people in the context of the broader healthcare system and their social networks, more issues contributing to uncertainty may arise.
Further examples of how uncertainty may be experienced across the health professions are described in later chapters in this handbook. Although healthcare can be highly uncertain, rest assured that it’s not all uncertain. This handbook will teach you to draw upon your experiences and knowledge (i.e., sources of certainty) to help your learners develop skills for managing uncertainty in their future practice. To begin with, this handbook explains principles and conceptual models explaining uncertainty tolerance and, critically, where some certainty can be found to guide healthcare professional learners in their practice.
Review & Reflect
End of Chapter Review
The goal of this quiz is to check your comprehension of key terms introduced in Chapter 1.
Reflection
Reflect on your experiences of uncertainty in healthcare. This could include your experiences as a healthcare professional, a health professions educator, or as a patient. Use the following questions to guide your thinking.
- What sources of uncertainty have you encountered? Were these due to lack of knowledge, to complexity, or to indeterminacy of future outcomes? Who was experiencing the uncertainty: healthcare professionals, patients, or both?
- Did any issues of uncertainty (e.g., access to healthcare, communication preferences, or health beliefs) influence your experience?
- How did you respond to the uncertainty? Your answer may relate to your thoughts, feelings, and actions.
You may find it helpful to write down or record your responses to these questions before moving on to the next chapter, which further describes the role of uncertainty tolerance in healthcare.
References
Aitken, R. J., & Watters, D. A. (2022). Clearing elective surgery waiting lists after the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be allowed to compromise emergency surgery care. Medical Journal of Australia, 217(5), 237–238. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51672
Anderson, E. C., Carleton, R. N., Diefenbach, M., & Han, P. K. (2019). The relationship between uncertainty and affect. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2504. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02504
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022, July 7). Social determinants of health. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/social-determinants-of-health
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x
Clauw, D. J. (2014). Fibromyalgia: A clinical review. JAMA, 311(15), 1547–1555. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.3266
Davis, H.E., McCorkell, L., Vogel, J.M., & Topol, E. J. (2023). Long COVID: Major findings, mechanisms and recommendations. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 21, 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00846-2
Degani, T., & Tokowicz, N. (2010). Semantic ambiguity within and across languages: An integrative review. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(7), 1266-1303. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903377372
Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18(1), 108–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01236.x
Funtowicz, S. (2020). From risk calculations to narratives of danger. Climate Risk Management, 27, Article 100212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2020.100212
Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4(9), 717–728. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102
Geller, G., Tambor, E. S., Chase, G. A., & Holtzman, N. A. (1993). Measuring physicians’ tolerance for ambiguity and its relationship to their reported practices regarding genetic testing. Medical Care, 31(11), 989–1001. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199311000-00002
Han, P. K., Klein, W. M., & Arora, N. K. (2011). Varieties of uncertainty in health care: A conceptual taxonomy. Medical Decision Making, 31(6), 828–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989×11393976
Hancock, J., & Mattick, K. (2020). Tolerance of ambiguity and psychological well-being in medical training: A systematic review. Medical Education, 54(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14031
Häuser, W., & Fitzcharles, M. A. (2018). Facts and myths pertaining to fibromyalgia. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 20(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2018.20.1/whauser
Hillen, M. A., Gutheil, C. M., Strout, T. D., Smets, E. M., & Han, P. K. (2017). Tolerance of uncertainty: Conceptual analysis, integrative model, and implications for healthcare. Social Science & Medicine, 180, 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.024
Jin, X., Chandramouli, C., Allocco, B., Gong, E., Lam, C. S., & Yan, L. L. (2020). Women’s participation in cardiovascular clinical trials from 2010 to 2017. Circulation, 141(7), 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043594
Lazarus, M. D. (2023). The uncertainty effect: How to survive and thrive through the unexpected. Monash University Press.
Lee, C., Hall, K., Anakin, M., & Pinnock, R. (2021). Towards a new understanding of uncertainty in medical education. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 27(5), 1194–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13503
Michelen, M., Manoharan, L., Elkheir, N., Cheng, V., Dagens, A., Hastie, C., O’Hara, M., Suett, J., Dahmash, D., Bugaeva, P., Rigby, I., Munblit, D., Harriss, E., Burls, A., Foote, C., Scott, J., Carson, G., Olliaro, P., Sigfrid, L., & Stavropoulou, C. (2021). Characterising long COVID: A living systematic review. BMJ Global Health, 6(9), Article e005427. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005427
Quintner, J. (2020). Why are women with fibromyalgia so stigmatized? Pain Medicine, 21(5), 882–888. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz350
Scott, I. A., Doust, J. A., Keijzers, G. B., & Wallis, K. A. (2023). Coping with uncertainty in clinical practice: A narrative review. Medical Journal of Australia, 218(9), 418–425. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51925
Simpkin, A. L., & Armstrong, K. A. (2019). Communicating uncertainty: A narrative review and framework for future research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34(11), 2586–2591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-04860-8
Strout, T. D., Hillen, M., Gutheil, C., Anderson, E., Hutchinson, R., Ward, H., Kay, H., Mills, G. J., & Han, P. K. (2018). Tolerance of uncertainty: A systematic review of health and healthcare-related outcomes. Patient Education and Counseling, 101(9), 1518–1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.03.030
Sudre, C. H., Murray, B., Varsavsky, T., Graham, M. S., Penfold, R. S., Bowyer, R. C., Capdevila Pujol, J., Klaser, K., Antonelli, M., Canas, L. S., Molteni, E., Modat, M., Cardoso, M. J., May, A., Ganesh, S., Davies, R., Nguyen, L. H., Drew, D. A., Astley, C. M., … Steves, C. J. (2021). Attributes and predictors of long COVID. Nature Medicine, 27, 626–631. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01292-y
World Health Organization. (2022, October 1). Ageing and health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health
A perception of not knowing.
Uncertainty tolerance is defined as adaptively, or appropriately, responding to uncertainty through actions, thoughts, and/or feelings. Aligning with contemporary conceptualisations, tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty tolerance are treated synonmously in this handbook. Uncertainty tolerance will be the predominant term referenced. For more on this term, please see Chapter 3.
People in receipt of healthcare. This term and others such as 'client' and 'consumer' have been problematised. For instance, not all those seeking and/or engaging with healthcare identify as patients, and many think ‘clients’ illustrates a transactional relationship. We hope to be able to update this terminology to be more inclusive as the English language develops.
A synonymous term for uncertainty tolerance. Although individual researchers and writers may specify how tolerance for ambiguity differs from uncertainty tolerance, a review of these constructs was unable to identify clear distinctions.
Research is considered 'settled' when there is a large body of longitudinal evidence across multiple fields and gathered from multiple sources.
The reasons underlying why uncertainty may be perceived, including ambiguity, probability and complexity. Synonymous with sources of uncertainty.
‘Randomness’ or ‘indeterminacy’ of future outcomes. Similar to 'aleatoric uncertainty'.
‘Randomness’ or ‘indeterminacy’ of future outcomes. Similar to 'probability'.
1) An experience that provokes a sense of vagueness and/or is open to multiple interpretations. 2) A property of information which stimulates uncertainty due to a lack of reliability, credibility or adequacy.
Knowledge which is incomplete.
Features of a phenomenon that make it challenging to grasp, caused by multiple elements interacting in a non-linear fashion. Also understood to be 'irreducible uncertainty' in sustainability literature. For more on this, refer to Chapter 3.
About the authors
name: Dr. Georgina C. Stephens, MBBS(Hons) PhD FHEA
institution: Monash University
website: https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/georgina-stephens
As a Senior Lecturer in the Centre for Human Anatomy Education at Monash University and medical practitioner by background, Georgina has first hand experience of what it means to manage uncertainty when caring for people seeking healthcare. Dr. Stephens transitioned to a full time academic career in 2017, focussed on clinical anatomy education and health professions education research. During her doctoral studies, she explored how medical students experience uncertainty, and examined the evidence for widely used scales intended to measure the construct of uncertainty tolerance. Her doctoral research led to five peer reviewed publications on uncertainty tolerance, all published in leading health professions education journals, and several winning awards for publication excellence. Georgina is an award winning educator, including being awarded the Dean’s Award for Innovation in Education in 2023.
A perception of not knowing.
Uncertainty tolerance is defined as adaptively, or appropriately, responding to uncertainty through actions, thoughts, and/or feelings. Aligning with contemporary conceptualisations, tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty tolerance are treated synonmously in this handbook. Uncertainty tolerance will be the predominant term referenced. For more on this term, please see Chapter 3.
People in receipt of healthcare. This term and others such as 'client' and 'consumer' have been problematised. For instance, not all those seeking and/or engaging with healthcare identify as patients, and many think ‘clients’ illustrates a transactional relationship. We hope to be able to update this terminology to be more inclusive as the English language develops.
A synonymous term for uncertainty tolerance. Although individual researchers and writers may specify how tolerance for ambiguity differs from uncertainty tolerance, a review of these constructs was unable to identify clear distinctions.
Research is considered 'settled' when there is a large body of longitudinal evidence across multiple fields and gathered from multiple sources.
The reasons underlying why uncertainty may be perceived, including ambiguity, probability and complexity. Synonymous with sources of uncertainty.
‘Randomness’ or ‘indeterminacy’ of future outcomes. Similar to 'aleatoric uncertainty'.
‘Randomness’ or ‘indeterminacy’ of future outcomes. Similar to 'probability'.
1) An experience that provokes a sense of vagueness and/or is open to multiple interpretations. 2) A property of information which stimulates uncertainty due to a lack of reliability, credibility or adequacy.
Knowledge which is incomplete.
Features of a phenomenon that make it challenging to grasp, caused by multiple elements interacting in a non-linear fashion. Also understood to be 'irreducible uncertainty' in sustainability literature. For more on this, refer to Chapter 3.
name: Prof Michelle Lazarus, PhD SFHEA
institution: Monash University
website: https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/michelle-lazarus
As a Professor and Director of the Centre for Human Anatomy Education and the Deputy Director for the Monash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education at Monash University, Michelle has been in the field of medical education for over a decade, leading a research program which explores how to impact learners’ uncertainty tolerance through curriculum design. She has delivered over a dozen related workshops to educators across the globe, and has developed a series of educational artefacts to support learner uncertainty tolerance development, including a pamphlet and webinar, for Education Services Australia for teachers interested in integrating uncertainty tolerance teaching practices in their classrooms. This textbook expands on these initiatives, providing a more holistic and complete source of uncertainty tolerance theory and practice – focusing specifically on health professions educators. Michelle is an award winning educator and author. Notably, she was awarded the Australian Award for University Teaching Excellence in 2021. She is the author of the “The Uncertainty Effect: How to Survive and Thrive through the Unexpected”. Her entire career is a journey into uncertainty.
A perception of not knowing.
Uncertainty tolerance is defined as adaptively, or appropriately, responding to uncertainty through actions, thoughts, and/or feelings. Aligning with contemporary conceptualisations, tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty tolerance are treated synonmously in this handbook. Uncertainty tolerance will be the predominant term referenced. For more on this term, please see Chapter 3.
People in receipt of healthcare. This term and others such as 'client' and 'consumer' have been problematised. For instance, not all those seeking and/or engaging with healthcare identify as patients, and many think ‘clients’ illustrates a transactional relationship. We hope to be able to update this terminology to be more inclusive as the English language develops.
A synonymous term for uncertainty tolerance. Although individual researchers and writers may specify how tolerance for ambiguity differs from uncertainty tolerance, a review of these constructs was unable to identify clear distinctions.
Research is considered 'settled' when there is a large body of longitudinal evidence across multiple fields and gathered from multiple sources.
The reasons underlying why uncertainty may be perceived, including ambiguity, probability and complexity. Synonymous with sources of uncertainty.
‘Randomness’ or ‘indeterminacy’ of future outcomes. Similar to 'aleatoric uncertainty'.
‘Randomness’ or ‘indeterminacy’ of future outcomes. Similar to 'probability'.
1) An experience that provokes a sense of vagueness and/or is open to multiple interpretations. 2) A property of information which stimulates uncertainty due to a lack of reliability, credibility or adequacy.
Knowledge which is incomplete.
Features of a phenomenon that make it challenging to grasp, caused by multiple elements interacting in a non-linear fashion. Also understood to be 'irreducible uncertainty' in sustainability literature. For more on this, refer to Chapter 3.
