Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37043070›Full record

ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2023

A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research.

Quang Hung Duong, To Nhu Pham, Lorenna Reynolds, Yan Yeap, Steven Walker, Kayley Lyons

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Quang Hung DuongFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Pde, Parkville, 3052, Australia.
To Nhu PhamFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Pde, Parkville, 3052, Australia.
Lorenna ReynoldsFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Pde, Parkville, 3052, Australia.
Yan YeapFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Pde, Parkville, 3052, Australia.
Steven WalkerFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Pde, Parkville, 3052, Australia.
Kayley LyonsCentre for Digital Transformation of Health, University of Melbourne, 700 Swanston St, Carlton, 3053, Australia. kayley.lyons@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-2224-1107

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Therapeutic reasoning is when the purpose, task, or goal for engaging in reasoning is to determine the patient's management plan. As the field's understanding of the process of therapeutic reasoning is less well understood, we focused on studies that collected data on the process of therapeutic reasoning. To synthesize previous studies of therapeutic reasoning characteristics, methodological approaches, theoretical underpinnings, and results. We conducted a scoping review with systematic searching for English language articles with no date limits. Databases included MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Embase, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ERIC. Search terms captured therapeutic reasoning in health professions education research. Initial search yielded 5450 articles. The title and abstract screening yielded 180 articles. After full-text review, 87 studies were included in this review. Articles were excluded if they were outside health professions education, did not collect data on the process of therapeutic reasoning, were not empirical studies, or not focused on therapeutic reasoning. We analyzed the included articles according to scoping questions using qualitative content analysis. 87 articles dated from 1987 to 2019 were included. Several study designs were employed including think-aloud protocol, interview and written documentation. More than half of the articles analyzed the data using qualitative coding. Authors often utilized several middle-range theories to explain therapeutic reasoning processes. The hypothetico-deductive model was most frequently mentioned. The included articles rarely built off the results from previous studies. Six key result categories were found: identifying themes, characterizing and testing previous local theory, exploring factors, developing new local theory, testing tools, and testing hypothesis. Despite the cast body of therapeutic reasoning research, individual study results remain isolated from previous studies. Our future recommendations include synthesizing pre-existing models, developing novel methodologies, and investigating other aspects of therapeutic reasoning.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelMotivationEmpirical ResearchHumansDecision making processesLearning theoriesScoping reviewTherapeutic decision-makingTherapeutic reasoning

Identifiers

PMID37043070
PMCPMC10624714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.