ArticleMedical education2026
How postgraduate medical trainees conceptualise management reasoning: A qualitative study.
Article in Medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the factors influencing pharmacists' therapeutic reasoning in decision-making: a concurrent think aloud and semi-structured interview study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- How postgraduate medical trainees conceptualise management reasoning: A qualitative study.Medical education · 2026Article
- Phenotypes of Management Reasoning Struggle in Postgraduate Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionManagement reasoning (MR) remains poorly understood in medical education. Current understanding is largely theoretical or based on studies of physicians in simulated settings or narrow clinical contexts. Little is known about how trainees themselves conceptualise and enact MR during routine care. This study explored how postgraduate trainees conceptualise MR and describe the process, as well as the contextual influences that shape their MR during training.
methodWe conducted a qualitative study using a constructivist paradigm and reflexive thematic analysis. Four semi-structured focus groups were held with 28 senior postgraduate trainees in Internal Medicine, Paediatrics, Family Medicine, and Medicine-Paediatrics across two U.S. academic medical centres. Focus groups were transcribed verbatim and coded inductively. Themes were developed through an iterative and reflexive process with attention to both semantic content and underlying meaning.
resultsFour themes captured how trainees conceptualise MR: how MR is understood within clinical reasoning, uncertainty and risk characterise the complexity of MR, core and variable components of the MR process, and contextual factors influencing the MR. Trainees viewed MR as linked to diagnostic reasoning but distinct in its pragmatic and action-oriented focus. They described ongoing negotiation of uncertainty and risk, emphasising flexibility and adjustment as conditions changed. The MR process commonly featured four core components-working diagnosis, delineation of management options, contextualisation and monitoring or follow-up-along with variable components that were applied flexibly depending on context. Trainees described a variety of contextual factors that influenced MR. DISCUSSION: Postgraduate trainees viewed MR as a dynamic, complex and flexible process. This study adds to the empirical literature on MR by confirming its patient-centred and context-dependent nature while introducing novel insights from the trainee perspective, especially the centrality of uncertainty and risk. Understanding how trainees conceptualise MR can help educators make MR more visible 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.