No Cover Image

Journal article 1016 views 141 downloads

Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review

Meredith E. Young, Aliki Thomas, Stuart Lubarsky, David Gordon, Larry D. Gruppen, Joseph Rencic, Tiffany Ballard, Eric Holmboe, Ana Sergio Da Silva Orcid Logo, Temple Ratcliffe, Lambert Schuwirth, Valérie Dory, Steven J. Durning

BMC Medical Education, Volume: 20, Issue: 1

Swansea University Author: Ana Sergio Da Silva Orcid Logo

  • 54007VOR.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    Released under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY).

    Download (1.1MB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1186/s12909-020-02012-9

Abstract

BackgroundClinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals’ practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions.MethodsWe conducted a scoping study to map the literature on cli...

Full description

Published in: BMC Medical Education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Published: Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2020
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa54007
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2020-04-21T13:35:00Z
last_indexed 2023-01-11T14:31:51Z
id cronfa54007
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2022-11-02T12:41:54.7542833</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>54007</id><entry>2020-04-21</entry><title>Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>de3fd9cf472af81153330806963ac7a9</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-7262-0215</ORCID><firstname>Ana</firstname><surname>Sergio Da Silva</surname><name>Ana Sergio Da Silva</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2020-04-21</date><deptcode>PMSC</deptcode><abstract>BackgroundClinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals&#x2019; practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions.MethodsWe conducted a scoping study to map the literature on clinical reasoning across health professions literature in the context of a larger Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review on clinical reasoning assessment. Seven databases were searched using subheadings and terms relating to clinical reasoning, assessment, and Health Professions. Data analysis focused on a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric characteristics and the use of varied terminology to refer to clinical reasoning.ResultsLiterature identified: 625 papers spanning 47&#x2009;years (1968&#x2013;2014), in 155 journals, from 544 first authors, across eighteen Health Professions. Thirty-seven percent of papers used the term clinical reasoning; and 110 other terms referring to the concept of clinical reasoning were identified. Consensus on the categorization of terms was reached for 65 terms across six different categories: reasoning skills, reasoning performance, reasoning process, outcome of reasoning, context of reasoning, and purpose/goal of reasoning. Categories of terminology used differed across Health Professions and publication types.DiscussionMany diverse terms were present and were used differently across literature contexts. These terms likely reflect different operationalisations, or conceptualizations, of clinical reasoning as well as the complex, multi-dimensional nature of this concept. We advise authors to make the intended meaning of &#x2018;clinical reasoning&#x2019; and associated terms in their work explicit in order to facilitate teaching, assessment, and research communication.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>BMC Medical Education</journal><volume>20</volume><journalNumber>1</journalNumber><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher>Springer Science and Business Media LLC</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic>1472-6920</issnElectronic><keywords>Clinical reasoning, Health professions, Synthesis, Scoping review, Teaching, Assessment, Education</keywords><publishedDay>7</publishedDay><publishedMonth>4</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2020</publishedYear><publishedDate>2020-04-07</publishedDate><doi>10.1186/s12909-020-02012-9</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Medicine</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>PMSC</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><funders>This work was partially supported the Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante (FRQ-S) Junior Research Scholar program and by funds provided by the Department of Medicine, McGill University to M. Young.</funders><projectreference/><lastEdited>2022-11-02T12:41:54.7542833</lastEdited><Created>2020-04-21T11:54:30.0689141</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences</level><level id="2">Swansea University Medical School - Medicine</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Meredith E.</firstname><surname>Young</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Aliki</firstname><surname>Thomas</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Stuart</firstname><surname>Lubarsky</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>David</firstname><surname>Gordon</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Larry D.</firstname><surname>Gruppen</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>Joseph</firstname><surname>Rencic</surname><order>6</order></author><author><firstname>Tiffany</firstname><surname>Ballard</surname><order>7</order></author><author><firstname>Eric</firstname><surname>Holmboe</surname><order>8</order></author><author><firstname>Ana</firstname><surname>Sergio Da Silva</surname><orcid>0000-0001-7262-0215</orcid><order>9</order></author><author><firstname>Temple</firstname><surname>Ratcliffe</surname><order>10</order></author><author><firstname>Lambert</firstname><surname>Schuwirth</surname><order>11</order></author><author><firstname>Val&#xE9;rie</firstname><surname>Dory</surname><order>12</order></author><author><firstname>Steven J.</firstname><surname>Durning</surname><order>13</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>54007__17107__6b655334ac614cc0aa87c3eecc7e2e9f.pdf</filename><originalFilename>54007VOR.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2020-04-21T11:56:42.3272292</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>1156065</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>Released under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY).</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2022-11-02T12:41:54.7542833 v2 54007 2020-04-21 Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review de3fd9cf472af81153330806963ac7a9 0000-0001-7262-0215 Ana Sergio Da Silva Ana Sergio Da Silva true false 2020-04-21 PMSC BackgroundClinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals’ practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions.MethodsWe conducted a scoping study to map the literature on clinical reasoning across health professions literature in the context of a larger Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review on clinical reasoning assessment. Seven databases were searched using subheadings and terms relating to clinical reasoning, assessment, and Health Professions. Data analysis focused on a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric characteristics and the use of varied terminology to refer to clinical reasoning.ResultsLiterature identified: 625 papers spanning 47 years (1968–2014), in 155 journals, from 544 first authors, across eighteen Health Professions. Thirty-seven percent of papers used the term clinical reasoning; and 110 other terms referring to the concept of clinical reasoning were identified. Consensus on the categorization of terms was reached for 65 terms across six different categories: reasoning skills, reasoning performance, reasoning process, outcome of reasoning, context of reasoning, and purpose/goal of reasoning. Categories of terminology used differed across Health Professions and publication types.DiscussionMany diverse terms were present and were used differently across literature contexts. These terms likely reflect different operationalisations, or conceptualizations, of clinical reasoning as well as the complex, multi-dimensional nature of this concept. We advise authors to make the intended meaning of ‘clinical reasoning’ and associated terms in their work explicit in order to facilitate teaching, assessment, and research communication. Journal Article BMC Medical Education 20 1 Springer Science and Business Media LLC 1472-6920 Clinical reasoning, Health professions, Synthesis, Scoping review, Teaching, Assessment, Education 7 4 2020 2020-04-07 10.1186/s12909-020-02012-9 COLLEGE NANME Medicine COLLEGE CODE PMSC Swansea University This work was partially supported the Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante (FRQ-S) Junior Research Scholar program and by funds provided by the Department of Medicine, McGill University to M. Young. 2022-11-02T12:41:54.7542833 2020-04-21T11:54:30.0689141 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences Swansea University Medical School - Medicine Meredith E. Young 1 Aliki Thomas 2 Stuart Lubarsky 3 David Gordon 4 Larry D. Gruppen 5 Joseph Rencic 6 Tiffany Ballard 7 Eric Holmboe 8 Ana Sergio Da Silva 0000-0001-7262-0215 9 Temple Ratcliffe 10 Lambert Schuwirth 11 Valérie Dory 12 Steven J. Durning 13 54007__17107__6b655334ac614cc0aa87c3eecc7e2e9f.pdf 54007VOR.pdf 2020-04-21T11:56:42.3272292 Output 1156065 application/pdf Version of Record true Released under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY). true eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review
spellingShingle Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review
Ana Sergio Da Silva
title_short Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review
title_full Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review
title_fullStr Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review
title_sort Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review
author_id_str_mv de3fd9cf472af81153330806963ac7a9
author_id_fullname_str_mv de3fd9cf472af81153330806963ac7a9_***_Ana Sergio Da Silva
author Ana Sergio Da Silva
author2 Meredith E. Young
Aliki Thomas
Stuart Lubarsky
David Gordon
Larry D. Gruppen
Joseph Rencic
Tiffany Ballard
Eric Holmboe
Ana Sergio Da Silva
Temple Ratcliffe
Lambert Schuwirth
Valérie Dory
Steven J. Durning
format Journal article
container_title BMC Medical Education
container_volume 20
container_issue 1
publishDate 2020
institution Swansea University
issn 1472-6920
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s12909-020-02012-9
publisher Springer Science and Business Media LLC
college_str Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
department_str Swansea University Medical School - Medicine{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Swansea University Medical School - Medicine
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description BackgroundClinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals’ practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions.MethodsWe conducted a scoping study to map the literature on clinical reasoning across health professions literature in the context of a larger Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review on clinical reasoning assessment. Seven databases were searched using subheadings and terms relating to clinical reasoning, assessment, and Health Professions. Data analysis focused on a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric characteristics and the use of varied terminology to refer to clinical reasoning.ResultsLiterature identified: 625 papers spanning 47 years (1968–2014), in 155 journals, from 544 first authors, across eighteen Health Professions. Thirty-seven percent of papers used the term clinical reasoning; and 110 other terms referring to the concept of clinical reasoning were identified. Consensus on the categorization of terms was reached for 65 terms across six different categories: reasoning skills, reasoning performance, reasoning process, outcome of reasoning, context of reasoning, and purpose/goal of reasoning. Categories of terminology used differed across Health Professions and publication types.DiscussionMany diverse terms were present and were used differently across literature contexts. These terms likely reflect different operationalisations, or conceptualizations, of clinical reasoning as well as the complex, multi-dimensional nature of this concept. We advise authors to make the intended meaning of ‘clinical reasoning’ and associated terms in their work explicit in order to facilitate teaching, assessment, and research communication.
published_date 2020-04-07T04:07:17Z
_version_ 1763753525552087040
score 11.036706

Similar Items