Sun, Jun 1, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 16, Issue 51 (2023)
JMED 2023, 16(51): 57-64 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: 08/2022
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
mlika M, dziri C, jallouli M, cheikhrouhou S, el mezni F. Teaching clinical reasoning among undergraduate medical students: A crossover randomized trial. JMED 2023; 16 (51) :57-64
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1898-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1898-en.html
1- University of Tunis El Manar. Faculty of Medicine of Tunis. Center of Trauma and major burn. Ben Arous , mouna.mlika@fmt.utm.tn
2- University of Tunis El Manar. Faculty of Medicine of Tunis
2- University of Tunis El Manar. Faculty of Medicine of Tunis
Abstract: (944 Views)
Background & Objective: Many clinical reasoning teaching techniques have been reported in the literature. The authors focused on 2 teaching techniques of clinical reasoning, the technique Summarize, Narrow, Analyze, Probe the preceptor, Plan, Self-selected topic (SNAPPS) and the Clinical Reasoning Technique (CRT), and compared their efficiency to improve the clinical reasoning competencies of third-year undergraduate medical students.
Materials & Methods: The authors performed a prospective randomized, controlled, non-blinded crossover trial including year-3 undergraduate medical students. Judgment criteria consisted of the scores attributed to a test assessing the cognitive competencies of the participants which was a structured summary performed by the students after each session. Besides, a satisfaction Likert-scale questionnaire was fulfilled by the students. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 20.0).
Results: Seventy-two students were included with a mean age of 21.03 (SD:2,30) years. The mean scores of the students allocated to the CRT arm reached 4.62 (SD:2.93)versus 4.99 (SD:2.93) for the SNAPPS arm. No significant statistical difference was observed between the mean scores according to the method used. The analysis of the satisfaction questionnaire revealed that 75% of the students preferred CRT because of the collaborative work performed.
Conclusion: This study highlights the need for varying techniques to improve the critical reasoning skills of medical students. Besides, it pointed out students' preference for collaborative approaches illustrating socio-constructivist theories of learning.
Materials & Methods: The authors performed a prospective randomized, controlled, non-blinded crossover trial including year-3 undergraduate medical students. Judgment criteria consisted of the scores attributed to a test assessing the cognitive competencies of the participants which was a structured summary performed by the students after each session. Besides, a satisfaction Likert-scale questionnaire was fulfilled by the students. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 20.0).
Results: Seventy-two students were included with a mean age of 21.03 (SD:2,30) years. The mean scores of the students allocated to the CRT arm reached 4.62 (SD:2.93)versus 4.99 (SD:2.93) for the SNAPPS arm. No significant statistical difference was observed between the mean scores according to the method used. The analysis of the satisfaction questionnaire revealed that 75% of the students preferred CRT because of the collaborative work performed.
Conclusion: This study highlights the need for varying techniques to improve the critical reasoning skills of medical students. Besides, it pointed out students' preference for collaborative approaches illustrating socio-constructivist theories of learning.
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2023/03/30 | Accepted: 2023/05/2 | Published: 2023/08/15
Received: 2023/03/30 | Accepted: 2023/05/2 | Published: 2023/08/15
References
1. Kassirer JP. Teaching Clinical Reasoning: Case-Based and Coached. Academic Medicine. 2010;85:1118-24. [PubMed]
2. Bleakley A. Re-visioning clinical reasoning, or stepping out from the skull. Medical Teacher. 2021;43(4):456-462. [DOI]
3. Shin HS. Reasoning processes in clinical reasoning: From the perspective of cognitive psychology. Korean Journal of Medical Education. 2019;31(4):299-308. [DOI]
4. Zairi I, Mzoughi K, Ben Dhiab M, et al. Evaluation of clinical reasoning teaching for third year medical students. La Tunisie Médicale. 2017 ;95 :1-5 [PubMed]
5. Horner P, Hunukumbure D, Fox J, et al. Learning in the Out-Patient Setting Outpatient Learning Perspectives at a UK Hospital. The Clinical Teacher. 2020;17:680-87 [PubMed]
6. Wolpaw TM, Wolpaw DR, Papp KK. SNAPPS: A Learner-Centered Model for Outpatient Education. Academic Medicine. 2003;78:893-97. [PubMed]
7. Cox M, Irby DM, Bowen JL. Educational Strategies to Promote Clinical Diagnostic Reasoning. New England Journal Of Medicine. 2006;355:2217-2225. [Article]
8. Tabbane C. Introduction elements to medical pedagogical workshops. Tunisia: Centre de Publications Universitaires; 2000.
9. Mlika M, Hassine L, Braham E, et al. ISSN 2347-954X (Print) About the Association of Different Methods of Learning in the Training of Medical Students in a Pathology Lab. Scholars Journal of Applied Medical Sciences. 2015;3:1149-53. [Article]
10. Bonnemains L, Marcon F, Braun M. Faisabilité de l’évaluation d’une observation médicale par combinaison de multiples critères : méthode NICTALOP. Pédagogie Médicale. 2013;14(2):119-132. [DOI]
11. Raupach T, Andresen JC, Meyer K, et al. Test-enhanced learning of clinical reasoning: a crossover randomised trial. Medical Education. 2016;50(7):711-720. [DOI]
12. Klein M, Otto B, Fischer MR, et al. Fostering medical students’ clinical reasoning by learning from errors in clinical case vignettes: effects and conditions of additional prompting procedures to foster self-explanations. Advances in Health Sciences Education. 2019;24(2):331-351. [DOI]
13. Kiesewetter J, Sailer M, Jung VM, et al. Learning clinical reasoning: How virtual patient case format and prior knowledge interact. BMC Medical Education. 2020;20(1). [DOI]
14. Pinnock R, Anakin M, Jouart M. Clinical reasoning as a threshold skill. Medical Teacher. 2019;41(6):683-689. [DOI]
15. Anakin M, Jouart M, Timmermans J, et al. Student Experiences of Learning Clinical Reasoning. The Clinical Teacher. 2019;16:1-6. [Article]
16. Wolpaw T, Papp KK, Bordage G. Using SNAPPS to Facilitate the Expression of Clinical Reasoning and Uncertainties: A Randomized Comparison Group Trial. Academic Medicine. 2009;84:517-24. [Article]
17. Fagundes EDT, Ibiapina CC, Alvim CG, et al. Case presentation methods: A randomized controlled trial of the one-minute preceptor versus SNAPPS in a controlled setting. Perspectives In Medical Education. 2020;9(4):245-250. [DOI]
18. Barangard H, Afshari P, Abedi P. The effect of the SNAPPS (summarize, narrow, analyze, probe, plan, and select) method versus teacher-centered education on the clinical gynecology skills of midwifery students in Iran. Journal of Education And Evaluation In Health and Professionalism. 2016;13:41. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
