ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2012
A structured process to develop scenarios for use in evaluation of an evidence-based approach in clinical decision making.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sedentary behaviour interventions in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: a systematic scoping review of intervention content, perceived acceptability and efficacy.BMC rheumatology · 2025Pooled it
- Motivational counselling and SMS-reminders for reduction of daily sitting time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a descriptive randomised controlled feasibility study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Trial
- Article
- Factors associated with clinical inertia: an integrative review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeScenarios are used as the basis from which to evaluate the use of the components of evidence-based practice in decision making, yet there are few examples of a standardized process of scenario writing. The aim of this paper is to describe a step-by-step scenario writing method used in the context of the authors' curriculum research study.
methodsScenario writing teams included one physical therapy clinician and one academic staff member. There were four steps in the scenario development process: (1) identify prevalent condition and brainstorm interventions; (2) literature search; (3) develop scenario framework; and (4) write scenario.
resultsScenarios focused only on interventions, not diagnostic or prognostic problems. The process led to two types of scenarios - ones that provided an intervention with strong research evidence and others where the intervention had weak evidence to support its use. The end product of the process was a scenario that incorporates aspects of evidence-based decision making and can be used as the basis for evaluation.
conclusionThe use of scenarios has been very helpful to capture therapists' reasoning processes. The scenario development process was applied in an education context as part of a final evaluation of graduating clinical physical therapy students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.