dedup_wf_001--c1785229b0ad7c3ec471c3928b18e1c2

Background: Clinical reasoning is a key ability essential for practising health professionals. However, little is known about the current global adoption of clinical reasoning teaching and assessment. Purpose: We aimed to provide insights into how clinical reasoning is deliberately taught and assessed in curricula worldwide and to identify needs and perceived barriers for teaching clinical reasoning to students and educators. Methods: A questionnaire was devised by an international expert group and distributed in a large international medical education community. Data were collected in 2018 and analysed using descriptive statistics. We identified themes in free-text responses using content analysis. Results: Three hundred and thirteen responses from 76 countries were collected. Most respondents were from Europe (34%). While the presence of a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum was only reported by 28%, 85% stated that such a curriculum was needed. The lack of awareness of the need to explicitly teach clinical reasoning was the most commonly identified barrier. For assessment, the greatest need identified was for more workplace-based assessment. Conclusions: Global respondents indicate the need to implement explicit longitudinal clinical reasoning curricula. Our findings suggest that efforts should be put into improving faculty development, including evidence-based materials on how to teach and assess clinical reasoning.

Tags
Data and Resources
To access the resources you must log in

This item has no data

Identity

Description: The Identity category includes attributes that support the identification of the resource.

Field Value
PID https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11800863.v1
PID https://www.doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2019.1708293
PID https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11800863
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11800863.v1
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32017640
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11800863
URL https://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/frontdoor/index/index/docId/71545
URL https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/3004804145
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2019.1708293
URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0142159X.2019.1708293
URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0142159X.2019.1708293
URL http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1394675
URL https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2019.1708293
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32017640/
Access Modality

Description: The Access Modality category includes attributes that report the modality of exploitation of the resource.

Field Value
Access Right Open Access
Attribution

Description: Authorships and contributors

Field Value
Author Kononowicz, Andrzej A., 0000-0003-2956-2093
Author Hege, Inga, 0000-0003-4335-5162
Author Edelbring, Samuel, 0000-0002-1110-0782
Author Sobocan, Monika, 0000-0003-1384-9487
Author Huwendiek, Sören, 0000-0001-6116-9633
Author Durning, Steven J., 0000-0001-5223-1597
Publishing

Description: Attributes about the publishing venue (e.g. journal) and deposit location (e.g. repository)

Field Value
Collected From OPUS Augsburg; ORCID; figshare; Datacite; Crossref; Microsoft Academic Graph
Hosted By OPUS Augsburg; figshare; Medical Teacher
Publication Date 2020-02-04
Additional Info
Field Value
Country Germany
Language UNKNOWN
Resource Type Other literature type; Article
keyword FOS: Health sciences
keyword FOS: Sociology
keyword FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences
system:type publication
Management Info
Field Value
Source https://science-innovation-policy.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=dedup_wf_001::c1785229b0ad7c3ec471c3928b18e1c2
Author jsonws_user
Last Updated 25 December 2020, 09:41 (CET)
Created 25 December 2020, 09:41 (CET)