TABLE 2.

Overview and description of common bias mitigation measures that go beyond general educational efforts to promote bias awareness and recognition.

Mitigation measure	Short description
Input from independent experts	Consultation with unaffiliated domain experts to provide unbiased insights, aiding in objective decision‐making and identification of potential oversights
Multiple options	Consideration of various alternatives at each decision point to prevent anchoring bias, reducing risk of group think, and encourage comprehensive evaluation
Prospectively setting (quantitative) decision criteria	Establishing predetermined agreements about decision‐making criteria, for example through setting explicit, numerical targets for project outcomes to enable objective evaluation and diminishing the influence of cognitive biases in decision‐making. For example, utilizing MIDD principles 9 to estimate the probability of success in Phase III 8
Diversity of thoughts	Ensuring a diverse group of decision‐makers to incorporate a range of perspectives, reducing the risk of groupthink, and promoting balanced decision‐making. See The FDA Equal Voice Initiative as an example 11
Planned leadership rotation	Implementing a scheduled change in leadership roles to infuse fresh perspectives, mitigate entrenched biases, and stimulate innovative thinking
Reference case forecasting	Creating a baseline scenario or projection that allows for comparing various options, anchoring to neutral anchors such as industry benchmarks or multiple anchors and re‐anchoring when revisiting and adjusting initial assumptions with evolving data and circumstances
Pre‐mortem	Imagining that a project has failed or experienced a negative outcome and analyzing potential reasons for that failure before the project begins that allow to understand risks and creation of action and mitigation plans
Information exchange formats such as an evidence framework	Utilizing structured communication methods to ensure balanced information sharing, preventing dominance of certain viewpoints, and promoting comprehensive understanding. In particular, this may help to scrutinize predictive validity rather than relying on the availability of evidence 24
Mandatory contradictory view	Invite contradictory perspectives through seeking diverse opinions, and assigning people to play Devil's advocate in decision‐making processes. In formalized setting, this could be a red team that is set up to critically review and challenge the assumptions of the decision‐maker
Confidential voting	Committee or team members vote without knowledge of how other members are voting to mitigate against groupthink and champion bias