ArticlePerspectives on medical education2025
How Malpractice and Error Cases Influence Information Recall in General Practice Residents, a Vignette Study.
Article in Perspectives on 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Integrating diagnostic error and malpractice cases into clinical reasoning education may enhance diagnostic reasoning by highlighting atypical presentations and diagnostic risks in complex contexts. While emotionally engaging, these cases might also affect information retention. This study examines how malpractice, error, and neutral case presentations influence recall for different information types and their interaction with learners' interest, satisfaction and anxiety levels. Methods: In this two-phase between-subjects experiment, 89 first-year general practice (GP) residents reviewed four clinical vignettes in either malpractice, diagnostic error, or neutral formats. Vignettes were structurally identical, with claim-related details in malpractice versions replaced by general medical information in others. Anxiety was measured pre- and post-exercise. After a one-hour filler task, participants completed a free recall task, and their interest and satisfaction levels were assessed. Recalled idea units (clinical case-specific, medical-theoretical, claim-specific) were analyzed using ANOVAs. Results: Anxiety, interest, and satisfaction levels remained similar across conditions. The proportion of total recalled idea units did not differ significantly (malpractice 11.38%, neutral 12.91%, error 13.12% Conclusion: GP residents retained fewer clinical case-specific details from malpractice claim vignettes than from neutral vignettes, with the missing information substituted by claim-specific details, without an increase in anxiety or interest. Further research is needed to understand the long-term impact of these differences on future diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice.
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.