Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42856646›Full record

ReviewHealth science reports2026

Which Clinical Reasoning Models Are Used by Physiotherapists, Occupational Therapists and Selected Allied Health Professionals? A Scoping Review.

Henry Schultz, Rosa Virgara, Ellen O'Callaghan, Ali Aguilar, Kristin Graham, Saravana Kumar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health science reports, 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

6 authors.

Henry SchultzSchool of Allied Health and Human Performance Adelaide University Adelaide Australia.
Rosa VirgaraSchool of Allied Health and Human Performance Adelaide University Adelaide Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7717-7715
Ellen O'CallaghanSchool of Allied Health and Human Performance Adelaide University Adelaide Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4954-9622
Ali AguilarSchool of Allied Health and Human Performance Adelaide University Adelaide Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3526-4183
Kristin GrahamSchool of Allied Health and Human Performance Adelaide University Adelaide Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1864-1856
Saravana KumarSchool of Allied Health and Human Performance Adelaide University Adelaide Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4003-4411

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Clinical reasoning is a critical skill for Allied Health professionals, enabling informed decision-making in patient care. While a wide variety of clinical reasoning models are taught across disciplines, it remains unclear which models are frequently applied in practice. The scoping review aimed to map the literature on clinical reasoning models used by allied health professionals. Methods: This review was informed by Joanna Briggs Institute's framework for scoping review. Searches were conducted across Medline, Embase, Emcare, SCOPUS, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and gray literature sources in January 2024. Results were screened in duplicate and data were descriptive synthesized and summarized the clinical reasoning approaches reported in the included studies. Results: Forty studies were included, spanning clinical reasoning literature from physiotherapy, occupational therapy, psychology, podiatry, speech pathology, and dietetics; no studies were identified for social work or exercise physiology. Hypothetico-deductive reasoning and pattern recognition were the most commonly reported models of clinical reasoning across the included studies, while three track reasoning and dual-process theory also featured across some professions. Seven additional models were also reported, though these were documented as isolated instances. Conclusion: While several clinical reasoning models are used by Allied Health professionals in practice, only a handful are commonly reported in the literature, particularly within physiotherapy and occupational therapy. This is despite Allied Health curricula and training programs drawing on a much broader range of models. Evidence for other Allied Health professions remain limited, highlighting a need for further research to determine whether these patterns hold more broadly. These findings suggest a need to reassess the teaching and application of clinical reasoning models within the professions studied. Further research, particularly with underrepresented Allied Health professions, can help identify preferences and drivers influencing model use in practice.

Indexed as

allied healthallied health personnelclinical decision‐makingclinical reasoninghealthcare

Identifiers

PMID42856646
PMCPMC13649610

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.