ArticleThe clinical teacher2025
Thinking About the Why: A Qualitative Study on Students' Perspectives of Paediatric Team-Based Learning Discussions.
Article in The clinical teacher, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Thinking About the Why: A Qualitative Study on Students' Perspectives of Paediatric Team-Based Learning Discussions.The clinical teacher · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionClinical reasoning skills are essential to medical practice. Team-based learning (TBL) using key-feature questions provides students an opportunity to explicitly practice clinical reasoning skills with peers. Understanding student experiences with this learning strategy may provide insights into optimizing learning experiences that foster clinical reasoning in preparation for the care of future patients.
methodsA descriptive qualitative design explored third-year medical students' experiences of a clinical reasoning-focused virtual TBL session. Six focus groups involving 26 third-year medical students were conducted; audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Themes were generated from analysed codes, drawing connections between common thoughts, processes and conditions experienced by participants. Data were verified, upholding principles of qualitative rigour to assure methodological credibility, transferability, confirmability and reflexivity.
resultsData analysis revealed five themes: (a) self-confidence, including enabling and deterring factors and peer calibration; (b) co-learning with peers, with students identifying knowledge gaps and gaining experience establishing consensus; (c) trust, as related to sense and position of authority; (d) clinical reasoning strategies articulated by students and integrating peer feedback; and (e) clinical application, as a parallel to real-life patients involving choosing wisely and commitment to decisions.
conclusionsStudents' perspectives on the clinical reasoning process were greatly impacted by clinical experience, including lack thereof. Their peer-to-peer experience highlights the power of social learning and trusting relationships on students' professional identity formation. How students translate learning from the classroom to authentic clinical encounters requires further study.
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.