Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42102843›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine2026

Cognition in the Clinic: The Case for Cognitive Ethnography in Family Medicine.

Nathan Cupido, Nicole N Woods, Kulamakan Kulasegaram, Risa Freeman, Maria Mylopoulos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine, 2026. 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. Review
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

5 authors.

Nathan CupidoThe Wilson Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nicole N WoodsThe Wilson Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kulamakan KulasegaramThe Wilson Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Risa FreemanDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Maria MylopoulosThe Wilson Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In family medicine, clinical reasoning often requires family physicians to provide patient care across a heterogeneity of clinical problems and a wide range of clinical contexts. The relationship between clinical reasoning and context has long been implicated in the medical education literature; however, traditional conceptualizations of clinical reasoning have focused on individual cognition and have positioned context as external to the process itself. More recently, clinical reasoning has been defined through the integration of knowledge and context. This emerging conceptualization requires research methodologies that place a greater emphasis on how this integration takes place in real-world practice settings. Despite this need, such methodologies remain underutilized and underexplained in the medical education literature. This article provides an overview of cognitive ethnography, a methodology that can explore the integration of knowledge and context in real-world settings. Using a case study of cognitive ethnography exploring adaptive expertise in family medicine, this article further shares an example of how to design and implement cognitive ethnography in family medicine research. A greater understanding of the realities of clinical reasoning in the family medicine context is crucial to support the ongoing research, training, and academic conversations in family medicine.

Indexed as

Clinical ReasoningCognitionFamily PracticeAnthropology, CulturalClinical CompetenceHumans

Identifiers

PMID42102843
PMCPMC12969563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.