ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Reconceptualizing Clinical Priority as Relational Influence: Derivation of Drawing Reasoning From a Sequential Programme of Research.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleDetermining which patient problem requires attention first is a continuous cognitive task with direct consequences for patient safety. Despite its centrality, clinical prioritization remains conceptually underdeveloped. Organizational models frame it as protocol-driven; experiential models assume it improves with clinical exposure. Neither addresses the specific cognitive challenge that prioritization poses when patients present with multiple interacting conditions. AIMS AND
objectivesTo reconceptualize clinical prioritization as a distinct cognitive task requiring relational integration under uncertainty, and to derive drawing reasoning, a structured visual method designed to support this process, from a three-study sequential programme of research.
methodConceptual development through sequential derivation. Three linked studies provided inputs: a theoretical integration combining complexity science, psychoneuroendocrinoimmunology, dual-process theory, and the Theory of Event Coding; a qualitative study documenting how clinicians define priority (N = 104); and an experimental study identifying cognitive biases and accuracy collapse when clinical data conflicted with expectations (N = 130). Cross-study findings were synthesized to produce definitions, an operationalized method, and testable propositions.
resultsThe programme produced two conceptual outputs and one methodological output. Systemic priority is defined as the variable exerting the strongest relational influence within the patient's clinical configuration. Iterative reasoning is specified as a safety-critical cognitive operation whose interruption is empirically linked to systematic errors in prioritization. Drawing reasoning translates these outputs into a three-phase method, variable elicitation, relational mapping, and priority identification with conflict check, that directly targets the cognitive vulnerabilities documented experimentally.
conclusionClinical prioritization under complexity is a distinct cognitive task that is not reducible to urgency ranking or accumulated experience. Drawing reasoning provides a teachable and testable method warranting empirical evaluation, particularly in chronic, multimorbid, and educational contexts.
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.