Trial reportAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2025
Using clinical cases with diagnostic errors and malpractice claims: impact on anxiety and diagnostic performance in GP clinical reasoning education.
Trial report 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 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.
- Validating a gamified size perception task for identifying cognitive profiles in children: a latent profile analysis of executive function and sensory measures.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- How Malpractice and Error Cases Influence Information Recall in General Practice Residents, a Vignette Study.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Erroneous and malpractice claim cases reflect knowledge gaps and complex contextual factors. Incorporating such cases into clinical reasoning education (CRE) may enhance learning and diagnostic skills. However, they may also elicit anxiety among learners, potentially impacting learning. As a result, the optimal utilization of such cases in CRE remains uncertain. This study aims to investigate the effect of erroneous and malpractice claim case vignettes on anxiety and future diagnostic performance in CRE and explores possible underlying factors that may influence learning, including self-reported confidence in the final diagnosis, learners' satisfaction, and retrospective impact of the cases. In this three-phase experiment, GP residents and supervisors were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: neutral (without reference to an error), erroneous (involving a diagnostic error), or malpractice claim (involving a diagnostic error along with a malpractice claim description). During the first session, participants reviewed six cases exclusively in the version of their assigned condition, with anxiety levels measured before and after. In the second session, participants solved six neutral clinical cases featuring the same diagnoses as those in the learning phase but presented in different scenarios, along with four filler cases. Diagnostic performance and self-reported confidence in the diagnosis were assessed. The third session measured learners' satisfaction and longer-term impact on the participants. Case vignettes featuring diagnostic errors or malpractice claims did not lead to increased anxiety and resulted in similar future diagnostic performance compared to neutral vignettes. Additionally, self-reported confidence, learners' satisfaction and long-term impact scores did not differ significantly between conditions. This suggests these cases can be integrated into CRE programs, offering a valuable source of diverse, context-rich examples that broaden case libraries without interfering with diagnostic performance or causing anxiety in learners.
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.