Charilaos Koufidis1,2, Katri Manninen1,3, Juha Nieminen1, Martin Wohlin4, Charlotte Silén1. 1. Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden. 3. Department of Infectious Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden. 4. Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Clinical reasoning lies at the heart of medical practice and has a long research tradition. Nevertheless, research is scattered across diverse academic disciplines with different research traditions in a wide range of scientific journals. This polyphony is a source of conceptual confusion. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to explore the underlying theoretical assumptions of clinical reasoning aiming to promote a comprehensive conceptual and theoretical understanding of the subject area. In particular, we asked how clinical reasoning is defined and researched and what conceptualizations are relevant to such uses. METHODS: A scoping review of the clinical reasoning literature was undertaken. Using a "snowball" search strategy, the wider scientific literature on clinical reasoning was reviewed in order to clarify the different underlying conceptual assumptions underlying research in clinical reasoning, particularly to the field of medical education. This literature included both medical education, as well as reasoning research in other academic disciplines outside medical education, that is relevant to clinical reasoning. A total of 124 publications were included in the review. RESULTS: A detailed account of the research traditions in clinical reasoning research is presented. In reviewing this research, we identified three main conceptualisations of clinical reasoning: "reasoning as cognitive activity," "reasoning as contextually situated activity," and "reasoning as socially mediated activity." These conceptualisations reflected different theoretical understandings of clinical reasoning. Each conceptualisation was defined by its own set of epistemological assumptions, which we have identified and described. CONCLUSIONS: Our work seeks to bring into awareness implicit assumptions of the ongoing clinical reasoning research and to hopefully open much needed channels of communication between the different research communities involved in clinical reasoning research in the field.
RATIONALE: Clinical reasoning lies at the heart of medical practice and has a long research tradition. Nevertheless, research is scattered across diverse academic disciplines with different research traditions in a wide range of scientific journals. This polyphony is a source of conceptual confusion. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to explore the underlying theoretical assumptions of clinical reasoning aiming to promote a comprehensive conceptual and theoretical understanding of the subject area. In particular, we asked how clinical reasoning is defined and researched and what conceptualizations are relevant to such uses. METHODS: A scoping review of the clinical reasoning literature was undertaken. Using a "snowball" search strategy, the wider scientific literature on clinical reasoning was reviewed in order to clarify the different underlying conceptual assumptions underlying research in clinical reasoning, particularly to the field of medical education. This literature included both medical education, as well as reasoning research in other academic disciplines outside medical education, that is relevant to clinical reasoning. A total of 124 publications were included in the review. RESULTS: A detailed account of the research traditions in clinical reasoning research is presented. In reviewing this research, we identified three main conceptualisations of clinical reasoning: "reasoning as cognitive activity," "reasoning as contextually situated activity," and "reasoning as socially mediated activity." These conceptualisations reflected different theoretical understandings of clinical reasoning. Each conceptualisation was defined by its own set of epistemological assumptions, which we have identified and described. CONCLUSIONS: Our work seeks to bring into awareness implicit assumptions of the ongoing clinical reasoning research and to hopefully open much needed channels of communication between the different research communities involved in clinical reasoning research in the field.
Authors: Ingrid A Woelfel; Brentley Q Smith; Ritu Salani; Alan E Harzman; Amalia L Cochran; Xiaodong Phoenix Chen Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 3.125
Authors: Larissa Ia Ruczynski; Marjolein Hj van de Pol; Bas Jjw Schouwenberg; Roland Fjm Laan; Cornelia Rmg Fluit Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 2.463