Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42699221›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026

Phenotypes of Management Reasoning Struggle in Postgraduate Medical Education.

Andrew S Parsons, Matthew Kelleher, James Bowen, Karen M Warburton, Michael S Ryan, Walther N K A van Mook, Steven J Durning

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Andrew S ParsonsDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5631-9465
Matthew KelleherDepartment of Internal Medicine and Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine/Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6400-1745
James BowenDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine/Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8199-9076
Karen M WarburtonDepartment of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3876-4260
Michael S RyanDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3266-9289
Walther N K A van MookDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Academy for Postgraduate Training, Maastricht University Medical Centre, and School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2398-8878
Steven J DurningDepartment of Health Professions Education, Center for Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5223-1597

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Clinical reasoning struggles are a leading cause of remediation referrals in postgraduate medical education. Most remediation efforts, like much of the clinical reasoning literature, focus on diagnostic reasoning. Errors in management reasoning can have serious consequences for patients, yet no framework exists for recognizing how learners struggle in this domain or for guiding remediation when they do. Methods: We conducted a multi-institutional qualitative interview study within a constructivist paradigm using the critical incident technique to explore how postgraduate medical trainees struggle with management reasoning in clinical practice, how those struggles are recognized, and how programs respond. Participants were residency program directors and clinical competency committee chairs from U.S. internal medicine and pediatrics programs. Data were analyzed using a systematic cross-case approach to identify phenotypes of management reasoning struggle. Results: We interviewed 20 program directors and clinical competency committee chairs from 15 programs about 15 trainees remediated for management reasoning difficulties. Cross-case analysis identified four phenotypes: (1) Conclusion: These four phenotypes offer program leaders and frontline educators an empirically grounded vocabulary for recognizing patterns of management reasoning struggle earlier and designing more targeted support.

Indexed as

Clinical ReasoningEducation, Medical, GraduateClinical CompetenceHumansInterviews as TopicPhenotypeQualitative ResearchUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42699221
PMCPMC13544060

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.