ArticleJMIR medical education2025
Collaborative Development of Feedback Concept Maps for Virtual Patient-Based Clinical Reasoning Education: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2025. 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.
- An Entity-Based Visual Analytics System Enhancing Medical Expertise Acquisition: Development and Verification Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Basic Thinking Skills and Their Direct Instructional Approaches: A Narrative Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
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
Background: Concept maps are a suitable method for teaching clinical reasoning (CR). For example, in a concept map, findings, tests, differential diagnoses, and treatment options can be documented and connected to each other. When combined with virtual patients, automated feedback can be provided to the students' concept maps. However, as CR is a nonlinear process, feedback concept maps that are created together by several individuals might address this issue and cover perspectives from different health professionals. Objective: In this study, we aimed to develop a collaborative process for creating feedback concept maps in virtual patient-based CR education. Methods: Health professionals of different specialties, nationalities, and levels of experience in education individually created concept maps and afterward reached a consensus on them in structured workshops. Then, medical students discussed the health professionals' concept maps in focus groups. We performed a qualitative content analysis of the transcribed audio records and field notes and a descriptive comparison of the produced concept maps. Results: A total of 14 health professionals participated in 4 workshops, each with 3-4 participants. In each workshop, they reached a consensus on 1 concept map, after discussing content and presentation, as well as rationales, and next steps. Overall, the structure of the workshops was well-received. The comparison of the produced concept maps showed that they varied widely in their scope and content. Consensus concept maps tended to contain more nodes and connections than individual ones. A total of 9 medical students participated in 2 focus groups of 4 and 5 participants. Their opinions on the concept maps' features varied widely, balancing between the wish for an in-depth explanation and the flexibility of CR. Conclusions: Although the number of participating health professionals and students was relatively low, we were able to show that consensus workshops are a constructive method to create feedback concept maps that include different perspectives of health professionals with content that is useful to and accepted by students. Further research is needed to determine which features of feedback concept maps are most likely to improve learner outcomes and how to facilitate their construction in collaborative consensus workshops.
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.