Cargando…

A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research

Therapeutic reasoning is when the purpose, task, or goal for engaging in reasoning is to determine the patient’s management plan. As the field’s understanding of the process of therapeutic reasoning is less well understood, we focused on studies that collected data on the process of therapeutic reas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duong, Quang Hung, Pham, To Nhu, Reynolds, Lorenna, Yeap, Yan, Walker, Steven, Lyons, Kayley
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624714/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37043070
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-022-10187-7
_version_ 1785130972876898304
author Duong, Quang Hung
Pham, To Nhu
Reynolds, Lorenna
Yeap, Yan
Walker, Steven
Lyons, Kayley
author_facet Duong, Quang Hung
Pham, To Nhu
Reynolds, Lorenna
Yeap, Yan
Walker, Steven
Lyons, Kayley
author_sort Duong, Quang Hung
collection PubMed
description Therapeutic reasoning is when the purpose, task, or goal for engaging in reasoning is to determine the patient’s management plan. As the field’s understanding of the process of therapeutic reasoning is less well understood, we focused on studies that collected data on the process of therapeutic reasoning. To synthesize previous studies of therapeutic reasoning characteristics, methodological approaches, theoretical underpinnings, and results. We conducted a scoping review with systematic searching for English language articles with no date limits. Databases included MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Embase, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ERIC. Search terms captured therapeutic reasoning in health professions education research. Initial search yielded 5450 articles. The title and abstract screening yielded 180 articles. After full-text review, 87 studies were included in this review. Articles were excluded if they were outside health professions education, did not collect data on the process of therapeutic reasoning, were not empirical studies, or not focused on therapeutic reasoning. We analyzed the included articles according to scoping questions using qualitative content analysis. 87 articles dated from 1987 to 2019 were included. Several study designs were employed including think-aloud protocol, interview and written documentation. More than half of the articles analyzed the data using qualitative coding. Authors often utilized several middle-range theories to explain therapeutic reasoning processes. The hypothetico-deductive model was most frequently mentioned. The included articles rarely built off the results from previous studies. Six key result categories were found: identifying themes, characterizing and testing previous local theory, exploring factors, developing new local theory, testing tools, and testing hypothesis. Despite the cast body of therapeutic reasoning research, individual study results remain isolated from previous studies. Our future recommendations include synthesizing pre-existing models, developing novel methodologies, and investigating other aspects of therapeutic reasoning. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10459-022-10187-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10624714
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106247142023-11-05 A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research Duong, Quang Hung Pham, To Nhu Reynolds, Lorenna Yeap, Yan Walker, Steven Lyons, Kayley Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Review Therapeutic reasoning is when the purpose, task, or goal for engaging in reasoning is to determine the patient’s management plan. As the field’s understanding of the process of therapeutic reasoning is less well understood, we focused on studies that collected data on the process of therapeutic reasoning. To synthesize previous studies of therapeutic reasoning characteristics, methodological approaches, theoretical underpinnings, and results. We conducted a scoping review with systematic searching for English language articles with no date limits. Databases included MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Embase, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ERIC. Search terms captured therapeutic reasoning in health professions education research. Initial search yielded 5450 articles. The title and abstract screening yielded 180 articles. After full-text review, 87 studies were included in this review. Articles were excluded if they were outside health professions education, did not collect data on the process of therapeutic reasoning, were not empirical studies, or not focused on therapeutic reasoning. We analyzed the included articles according to scoping questions using qualitative content analysis. 87 articles dated from 1987 to 2019 were included. Several study designs were employed including think-aloud protocol, interview and written documentation. More than half of the articles analyzed the data using qualitative coding. Authors often utilized several middle-range theories to explain therapeutic reasoning processes. The hypothetico-deductive model was most frequently mentioned. The included articles rarely built off the results from previous studies. Six key result categories were found: identifying themes, characterizing and testing previous local theory, exploring factors, developing new local theory, testing tools, and testing hypothesis. Despite the cast body of therapeutic reasoning research, individual study results remain isolated from previous studies. Our future recommendations include synthesizing pre-existing models, developing novel methodologies, and investigating other aspects of therapeutic reasoning. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10459-022-10187-7. Springer Netherlands 2023-04-12 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10624714/ /pubmed/37043070 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-022-10187-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Duong, Quang Hung
Pham, To Nhu
Reynolds, Lorenna
Yeap, Yan
Walker, Steven
Lyons, Kayley
A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research
title A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research
title_full A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research
title_fullStr A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research
title_full_unstemmed A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research
title_short A scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research
title_sort scoping review of therapeutic reasoning process research
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624714/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37043070
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-022-10187-7
work_keys_str_mv AT duongquanghung ascopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch
AT phamtonhu ascopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch
AT reynoldslorenna ascopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch
AT yeapyan ascopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch
AT walkersteven ascopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch
AT lyonskayley ascopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch
AT duongquanghung scopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch
AT phamtonhu scopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch
AT reynoldslorenna scopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch
AT yeapyan scopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch
AT walkersteven scopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch
AT lyonskayley scopingreviewoftherapeuticreasoningprocessresearch