• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review
【24h】

Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review

机译：映射临床推理文学跨健康职业：一个范围审查

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Clinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals’ practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions. We conducted a scoping study to map the?literature on clinical reasoning across health professions literature in the context of a larger Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review on clinical reasoning assessment. Seven databases were searched using subheadings and terms relating to clinical reasoning, assessment, and Health Professions. Data analysis focused on a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric characteristics and the use of varied terminology to refer to clinical reasoning. Literature identified: 625 papers spanning 47?years (1968–2014), in 155 journals, from 544 first authors, across eighteen Health Professions. Thirty-seven percent of papers used the term clinical reasoning; and 110 other terms referring to the concept of clinical reasoning were identified. Consensus on the categorization of terms was reached for 65 terms across six different categories: reasoning skills, reasoning performance, reasoning process, outcome of reasoning, context of reasoning, and purpose/goal of reasoning. Categories of terminology used differed across Health Professions and publication types. Many diverse terms were present and were used differently across literature contexts. These terms likely reflect different operationalisations, or conceptualizations, of clinical reasoning as well as the complex, multi-dimensional nature of this concept. We advise authors to make the intended meaning of ‘clinical reasoning’ and associated terms in their work explicit in order to facilitate teaching, assessment, and research communication.
机译：临床推理是卫生专业人士实践的核心。构成临床推理的映射可以支持教学，发展和对健康专业的临床推理的评估。我们进行了一个划船的临床推理文学的范围研究，在临床推理评估的更大的最佳证据教育（BEME）审查中​​跨健康专业文献。使用副标题和与临床推理，评估和健康专业有关的术语进行搜索七个数据库。数据分析专注于综合分析了对伯格计的特征和不同术语的使用来提及临床推理。鉴定文献：625篇论文跨越47篇？年（1968 - 2014年），在155个期刊中，来自544个第一作者，跨越了十八个卫生职业。 37％的论文使用了临床推理一词;并鉴定了110个参考临床推理概念的其他术语。六不同类别的65条术语达成了对术语分类的共识：推理技能，推理性能，推理过程，推理结果，推理背景，以及推理的目的/目标。使用的术语类别跨越健康专业和出版物类型。存在许多不同的术语，并且在文学环境中不同地使用。这些条款可能反映了临床推理以及该概念的复杂多维性质的不同操作或概念化。我们建议作者在其工作中提出“临床推理”和相关条款的意图，以促进教学，评估和研究沟通。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号