ArticleBMC medical education2025
Influence of risk literacy, decision-making styles and motivation on clinical reasoning in medical students: an ordinal logistic regression analysis.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical reasoning is critical to the medical profession and should be a central component of the medical curriculum. However, there are different explanations of how clinical reasoning works, and there is little research on how it develops during medical education. The aim of this study is to investigate factors, i.e. skills, processes and motivations, which influence clinical reasoning in medical students.
methods128 data sets were included in our study. We focused on the diagnostic aspect and therefore used students' Bayesian reasoning ability in three medical case scenarios (0-3 points) as the outcome parameter. The study measures students' risk literacy (Berlin Numeracy Test, 0-4 points) as a skill, their decision-making style as an intuitive and/or rational process (Decision Styles Scale, each 1-5 points) and identifies the role of motivation (questionnaire with 5-point Likert scales) in relation to academic goals as a potential influence on clinical reasoning. We used an ordinal logistic regression model for analysis.
resultsOrdinal logistic regression showed that risk literacy is more important for solving medical case scenarios than students' motivation to become researchers. The chance of solving ≥ 1 scenario increased by 33% when the highest BNT score was compared to the lowest, compared to a 27% increase for the highest motivation to become a researcher. The probability of obtaining ≥ 1 point in the scenarios rose 20% when the BNT score went from three to four, indicating that highly risk-literate students have a higher ability to solve Bayesian tasks. Yet, the ability to perform Bayesian reasoning also increased consistently with growing motivation to become a researcher.
conclusionsThe study highlights the importance of paying attention to medical students' risk literacy in the development of clinical reasoning, as it appears to be a critical component. Motivation also plays an important role and, accordingly, should be encouraged in 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.