↓ Skip to main content

Core components of communication of clinical reasoning: a qualitative study with experienced Australian physiotherapists

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
Title
Core components of communication of clinical reasoning: a qualitative study with experienced Australian physiotherapists
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, June 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10459-011-9302-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rola Ajjawi, Joy Higgs

Abstract

Communication is an important area in health professional education curricula, however it has been dealt with as discrete skills that can be learned and taught separate to the underlying thinking. Communication of clinical reasoning is a phenomenon that has largely been ignored in the literature. This research sought to examine how experienced physiotherapists communicate their clinical reasoning and to identify the core processes of this communication. A hermeneutic phenomenological research study was conducted using multiple methods of text construction including repeated semi-structured interviews, observation and written exercises. Hermeneutic analysis of texts involved iterative reading and interpretation of texts with the development of themes and sub-themes. Communication of clinical reasoning was perceived to be complex, dynamic and largely automatic. A key finding was that articulating reasoning (particularly during research) does not completely represent actual reasoning processes but represents a (re)construction of the more complex, rapid and multi-layered processes that operate in practice. These communications are constructed in ways that are perceived as being most relevant to the audience, context and purpose of the communication. Five core components of communicating clinical reasoning were identified: active listening, framing and presenting the message, matching the co-communicator, metacognitive aspects of communication and clinical reasoning abilities. We propose that communication of clinical reasoning is both an inherent part of reasoning as well as an essential and complementary skill based on the contextual demands of the task and situation. In this way clinical reasoning and its communication are intertwined, providing evidence for the argument that they should be learned (and explicitly taught) in synergy and in context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 126 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 33 26%
Unknown 29 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 19%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Psychology 6 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 33 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 February 2012.
All research outputs
#18,304,230
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#743
of 849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,858
of 111,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 111,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.