ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2025
Promoting clinical reasoning in undergraduate Family Medicine curricula through concept mapping: a qualitative approach.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2025. 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.
- Graduate perspectives on a transnational medical programme: a qualitative study of career impact.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Better understanding the clinical reasoning skills of 4th-year medical students through think aloud interviews: implications for theory and practice.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026Article
- Treatment-focused clinical reasoning in medical students: relationship with academic success and professional commitment.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Concept mapping to promote clinical reasoning in multimorbidity: a mixed methods study in undergraduate family medicine.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical reasoning is a crucial skill for physicians, enabling them to bridge theoretical knowledge with practical application. The gap between basic sciences and clinical practice persists as a challenge, with traditional teaching methods yet to effectively bridge it. Concept maps (CMs), visual tools for organizing and connecting knowledge, hold promise for enhancing clinical reasoning in the undergraduate medical curriculum. However, further research is required to ascertain if CMs facilitate clinical reasoning development in medical students transitioning from basic sciences to clinical practice. This study aims to delineate how CMs can facilitate clinical reasoning in patients with multimorbidity within undergraduate Family Medicine curricula, as perceived by students and tutors, and to understand the implementation process and resources required. This exploratory qualitative study formed a part of an action research project. While introducing an educational intervention to 5th-year medical students, we conducted a qualitative evaluation. Subsequently, semi-structured group interviews were conducted with students, and a focus group was conducted with tutors. Three main educational impacts were identified: integration of clinical information, support for patient management and care plan, and collaborative learning. Key aspects for successful CM implementation included clear instructions for map construction, using user-friendly software, allocating sufficient time for the task, encouraging group discussion of CMs, and incorporating tutor feedback. CMs are pedagogical tools that facilitate clinical information integration and support management and treatment plans, helping students better understand multimorbidity patients and promoting some components of clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical 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.