ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring the perception of pre-clinical and clinical educators on clinical reasoning: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEducators have differing perception on the definition and conceptualization of clinical reasoning. Even though clinical reasoning is important in making a sound diagnosis and reducing diagnostic error, educators proved to be a barrier in teaching clinical reasoning due to the lack of awareness of their own reasoning process.
objectivesThis study was conducted to investigate the perception and understanding of pre-clinical and clinical educators on what clinical reasoning entails, their experience, and educational strategies in teaching clinical reasoning.
methodA semi-structured interview was conducted with fifteen educators encompassing pre-clinical (basic science, laboratory-based) and clinical (surgical-based, medical-based, community-based and emergency medicine) educators. The transcribed interview data was then analysed thematically.
resultsEight main themes were identified. Knowledge and experience were seen as important components in developing clinical reasoning. It was possible to teach clinical reasoning although there were some difficulties thus the need to have a train-the-trainer programme. Early introduction of clinical reasoning with its incorporation in various teaching and learning method; and the involvement of technological advances were also mentioned by the participants. However, pre-clinical educators did not perceive the importance of these technological advances. Role of educators; cognitive and non-cognitive attributes were also important in developing clinical reasoning.
conclusionThe perception and understanding of pre-clinical and clinical educators on clinical reasoning did not really differ. They believed that clinical reasoning can be taught, and a train-the-trainer program may be of immeasurable benefit.
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.