↓ Skip to main content

Context and clinical reasoning

Overview of attention for article published in Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Context and clinical reasoning
Published in
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40037-018-0417-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elexis McBee, Temple Ratcliffe, Lambert Schuwirth, Daniel O’Neill, Holly Meyer, Shelby J. Madden, Steven J. Durning

Abstract

Studies have shown that a physician's clinical reasoning performance can be influenced by contextual factors. We explored how the clinical reasoning performance of medical students was impacted by contextual factors in order to expand upon previous findings in resident and board certified physicians. Using situated cognition as the theoretical framework, our aim was to evaluate the verbalized clinical reasoning processes of medical students in order to describe what impact the presence of contextual factors has on their reasoning performance. Seventeen medical student participants viewed three video recordings of clinical encounters portraying straightforward diagnostic cases in internal medicine with explicit contextual factors inserted. Participants completed a computerized post-encounter form as well as a think-aloud protocol. Three authors analyzed verbatim transcripts from the think-aloud protocols using a constant comparative approach. After iterative coding, utterances were analyzed and grouped into categories and themes. Six categories and ten associated themes emerged, which demonstrated overlap with findings from previous studies in resident and attending physicians. Four overlapping categories included emotional disturbances, behavioural inferences about the patient, doctor-patient relationship, and difficulty with closure. Two new categories emerged to include anchoring and misinterpretation of data. The presence of contextual factors appeared to impact clinical reasoning performance in medical students. The data suggest that a contextual factor can be innate to the clinical scenario, consistent with situated cognition theory. These findings build upon our understanding of clinical reasoning performance from both a theoretical and practical perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 12%
Lecturer 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Other 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 20 27%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 19%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,398,759
of 25,714,183 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#156
of 575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,455
of 340,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,714,183 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.