Observational studyBMC medical education2017
Monitoring progression of clinical reasoning skills during health sciences education using the case method - a qualitative observational study.
Observational study in BMC medical education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Treatment-focused clinical reasoning in medical students: relationship with academic success and professional commitment.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- 10 tips for clinical educators in designing and delivering learning experiences to improve clinical reasoning for medical students.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2025Article
- Case-based learning: Modern teaching tool meant for present curriculum: A behavioral analysis from faculties' perspective.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
- Clinical Reasoning Curricula in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOutcome- or competency-based education is well established in medical and health sciences education. Curricula are based on courses where students develop their competences and assessment is also usually course-based. Clinical reasoning is an important competence, and the aim of this study was to monitor and describe students' progression in professional clinical reasoning skills during health sciences education using observations of group discussions following the case method.
methodsIn this qualitative study students from three different health education programmes were observed while discussing clinical cases in a modified Harvard case method session. A rubric with four dimensions - problem-solving process, disciplinary knowledge, character of discussion and communication - was used as an observational tool to identify clinical reasoning. A deductive content analysis was performed.
resultsThe results revealed the students' transition over time from reasoning based strictly on theoretical knowledge to reasoning ability characterized by clinical considerations and experiences. Students who were approaching the end of their education immediately identified the most important problem and then focused on this in their discussion. Practice knowledge increased over time, which was seen as progression in the use of professional language, concepts, terms and the use of prior clinical experience. The character of the discussion evolved from theoretical considerations early in the education to clinical reasoning in later years. Communication within the groups was supportive and conducted with a professional tone.
conclusionsOur observations revealed progression in several aspects of students' clinical reasoning skills on a group level in their discussions of clinical cases. We suggest that the case method can be a useful tool in assessing quality in health sciences education.
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.