Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38394053›Full record

ArticleMedical education online2024

Games to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education: a scoping review.

Gilbert Koelewijn, Marije P Hennus, Helianthe S M Kort, Joost Frenkel, Thijs van Houwelingen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Gilbert KoelewijnResearch Group Technology for Healthcare Innovations, Research Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Living, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0003-1101-2939
Marije P HennusDepartment of Pediatrics, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital/University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1508-0456
Helianthe S M KortResearch Group Technology for Healthcare Innovations, Research Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Living, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9735-1015
Joost FrenkelDepartment of Pediatrics, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital/University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0200-5425
Thijs van HouwelingenResearch Group Technology for Healthcare Innovations, Research Centre for Healthy and Sustainable Living, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6173-2454

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGiven the complexity of teaching clinical reasoning to (future) healthcare professionals, the utilization of serious games has become popular for supporting clinical reasoning education. This scoping review outlines games designed to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education, with a specific emphasis on their alignment with the 8-step clinical reasoning cycle and the reflective practice framework, fundamental for effective learning.

methodsA scoping review using systematic searches across seven databases (PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) was conducted. Game characteristics, technical requirements, and incorporation of clinical reasoning cycle steps were analyzed. Additional game information was obtained from the authors.

resultsNineteen unique games emerged, primarily simulation and escape room genres. Most games incorporated the following clinical reasoning steps: patient consideration (step 1), cue collection (step 2), intervention (step 6), and outcome evaluation (step 7). Processing information (step 3) and understanding the patient's problem (step 4) were less prevalent, while goal setting (step 5) and reflection (step 8) were least integrated.

conclusionAll serious games reviewed show potential for improving clinical reasoning skills, but thoughtful alignment with learning objectives and contextual factors is vital. While this study aids health professions educators in understanding how games may support teaching of clinical reasoning, further research is needed to optimize their effective use in education. Notably, most games lack explicit incorporation of all clinical reasoning cycle steps, especially reflection, limiting its role in reflective practice. Hence, we recommend prioritizing a systematic clinical reasoning model with explicit reflective steps when using serious games for teaching clinical reasoning.

Indexed as

Clinical ReasoningClinical CompetenceHealth OccupationsHumansTeachingVideo GamesClinical reasoningcritical thinkingexperimental learningmedical educationproblem-solvingreflective practiceserious games

Identifiers

PMID38394053
PMCPMC10896137

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.