Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40546327›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2025

Engaged curiosity: "Hot spots" for clinical reasoning in complex patient encounters.

Michael Soh, Dolores Mullikin, Steven J Durning, Jerusalem Merkebu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael SohSchool of Graduate Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA.
Dolores MullikinMary Bridge Children's Hospital, Tacoma, WA, USA.
Steven J DurningDepartment of Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University, USA.
Jerusalem MerkebuDepartment of Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study explores how, if at all, engaged curiosity - a genuine, emotionally engaged interest in learning more about the complexity of another's particular emotional perspective - emerges in the clinical reasoning process and its relationship with contextual factors and clinical reasoning performance. Methods: Think-alouds transcripts from nineteen physicians in internal medicine from three military training facilities were thematically analyzed for instances of engaged curiosity and examined through the lens of contextual factors and clinical reasoning performance. Results: Our findings indicate that engaged curiosity can be likened to placeholders that physicians employ early on to "bookmark" sources of patient concern. These sources, or hot spots, deserve follow up, particularly when cognitive resources are unavailable to "attend" to a deeper understanding of the patient's experience. Conclusion: Engaged curiosity provides a unique lens for better understanding the relationship between empathy and clinical reasoning and warrants further research on its impact on the patient and their care. Innovation: Engaged curiosity could serve as a novel way to train physicians to think and engage more empathically with their patients.

Indexed as

Clinical reasoningEmpathic concernEngaged curiosityMedical education

Identifiers

PMID40546327
PMCPMC12182341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.