ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Critical thinking in early medical education: experiences from a first-year science course.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Critical thinking is emphasized as an important learning aim in early medical education, yet how students experience learning this capability in practice remains underexplored. Understanding students' experiences of learning critical thinking provides insight into how educational intentions are encountered rather than requiring measurement of whether learning has occurred. Methods: This study explored how first-year medical students experienced learning critical thinking in a science course. An interpretive qualitative design with reflexive thematic analysis and semi-structured interviews was used. Twelve first-year medical students participated. Results: Analysis generated four themes: navigating epistemic uncertainty about what critical thinking meant in context; engaging in active analytical practice through specific course activities; inhabiting a threshold of difficulty marked by persistent discomfort and evaluative ambiguity; and experiencing affective and identity-level responses to a cognitively demanding new standard of learning. Students reported that learning critical thinking felt different from other forms of learning they had previously encountered, often more demanding and less straightforward. Course activities such as problem-solving exercises and evaluating evidence were experienced as opportunities to practice critical thinking, though students varied in how comfortable or successful they felt during these activities. Moments of difficulty were common and included struggling to know how much analysis was sufficient or feeling uncertain about whether their thinking was appropriately critical. Discussion: The findings indicate that students experience learning critical thinking as a complex process involving cognitive effort, emotional engagement, and ongoing interpretation of what is being asked. Attending to how students experience this learning provides a perspective on early medical education that complements outcome-focused approaches.
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.