ArticleSaudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society2021
Development and evaluation of clinical reasoning using 'think aloud' approach in pharmacy undergraduates - A mixed-methods study.
Article in Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical reasoning in emergency medical technicians and its compliance with the illness script theory: A pilot study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- Encouraging students' engagement and promoting deep learning in immunology through an interactive clinical case problem-solving (CCPS) approach: Perception among cohort of medical students in Oman.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGiven the widespread use of clinical reasoning (CR) in the healthcare practice, it is essential to inculcate the CR practice in undergraduate pharmacy education which can not only facilitate their clinical education and clinical rotations but can also help them become better clinical pharmacists. There is very limited CR employed in the pharmacy curriculum and practice in the Middle East countries. This study aimed to develop and evaluate CR practice in pharmacy undergraduates in one college of pharmacy in Saudi Arabia.
methodsWe employed a mixed-methods methodology that included two phases. In Phase I, students were introduced to CR practice ('think aloud' method) and given geriatric clinical cases which they used in two sessions together with a tutor. This was followed by the writing of SOAP notes using the tutor feedback and completion of a survey that included a self-reflection about their experience of using the CR method. Phase II included face-to-face semi-structured interviews involving selected students that were recruited via convenience sampling to further explore the issues identified in Phase I of the study.
resultsOf the 155 students who completed the survey (response rate 94%), the majority of them agreed that CR using the 'think aloud' method was useful in gathering (92%) and interpreting (95%) relevant patient information, identifying medication-related problems (95%), exploring therapeutic options for the problem(s) (93%) and formulating a treatment plan for the patient (90%). Qualitative data analysis of the 12 interviews was consistent with these findings. Furthermore, it provided an insight into the challenges faced by the students in applying this CR method.
conclusionsStudents found the practice of CR using the 'think aloud' method helpful in working through given cases and taking clinical decisions. This method can be widely employed in pharmacy education and practice.
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.