Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39695556›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Concept mapping to promote clinical reasoning in multimorbidity: a mixed methods study in undergraduate family medicine.

Marta Fonseca, Paula Broeiro-Gonçalves, Mariana Barosa, Pedro Marvão, Marta Carreira, Sofia Azeredo-Lopes, Joana Pires, António Rendas, Patrícia Rosado-Pinto, Bruno Heleno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

10 authors.

Marta FonsecaComprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), NOVA Medical School, NOVA University, Lisbon, Portugal. marta.fonseca@nms.unl.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5167-0598
Paula Broeiro-GonçalvesComprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), University of Évora, Évora, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5013-6171
Mariana BarosaNOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7729-448X
Pedro MarvãoNOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2030-0516
Marta CarreiraNOVA National School of Public Health, Lisbon, Portugal.
Sofia Azeredo-LopesComprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), NOVA Medical School, NOVA University, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4655-4987
Joana PiresComprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), National School of Public Health, NOVA University, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9413-6173
António RendasNOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5173-4256
Patrícia Rosado-PintoNOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7549-9913
Bruno HelenoComprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), NOVA Medical School, NOVA University, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3943-1858

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical reasoning significantly impacts physicians' performance and patient care quality. Research into learning transfer within clinical reasoning education, especially in managing multimorbidity in Family Medicine, is crucial. This study evaluates the impact of concept maps (CMs) on promoting clinical reasoning skills among undergraduate students, compared to traditional teaching methods (TM).

methodsA mixed methods approach was used in a controlled, non-randomized study with fifth-year Family Medicine undergraduates allocated to sessions using either CMs or TM. Quantitative data included a feedback questionnaire and evaluation of an individual task. Qualitative data comprised responses to an open-ended question and analysis of problem representation in the individual task.

resultsAmong 313 eligible students, 112 participated (CM: 60, TM: 52). Both groups reported high satisfaction with their teaching methods. The CM group valued the holistic view and organization for managing multimorbidity cases, showing higher odds of positive scores on individual tasks (differences not statistically significant). Additionally, the CM group had a more homogeneous code matrix for problem representation in two clinical vignettes.

conclusionsWhile no definitive evidence supports the superiority of CMs over traditional methods, promising trends were noted. The CM group showed improved performance in individual tasks and better organization in managing multimorbidity cases. Further investigation is recommended to explore varying levels of CM usage and modifications to pre-class workloads. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Clinical ReasoningEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFamily PracticeMultimorbidityAdultClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansMaleStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical reasoningConcept mapFamily MedicineMultimorbidityUndergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID39695556
PMCPMC11653553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.