Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2021 Apr;27(2):438-450. doi: 10.1111/jep.13432. Epub 2020 Jun 22.
Clinical reasoning lies at the heart of medical practice and has a long research tradition. Nevertheless, research is scattered across diverse academic disciplines with different research traditions in a wide range of scientific journals. This polyphony is a source of conceptual confusion.
We sought to explore the underlying theoretical assumptions of clinical reasoning aiming to promote a comprehensive conceptual and theoretical understanding of the subject area. In particular, we asked how clinical reasoning is defined and researched and what conceptualizations are relevant to such uses.
A scoping review of the clinical reasoning literature was undertaken. Using a "snowball" search strategy, the wider scientific literature on clinical reasoning was reviewed in order to clarify the different underlying conceptual assumptions underlying research in clinical reasoning, particularly to the field of medical education. This literature included both medical education, as well as reasoning research in other academic disciplines outside medical education, that is relevant to clinical reasoning. A total of 124 publications were included in the review.
A detailed account of the research traditions in clinical reasoning research is presented. In reviewing this research, we identified three main conceptualisations of clinical reasoning: "reasoning as cognitive activity," "reasoning as contextually situated activity," and "reasoning as socially mediated activity." These conceptualisations reflected different theoretical understandings of clinical reasoning. Each conceptualisation was defined by its own set of epistemological assumptions, which we have identified and described.
Our work seeks to bring into awareness implicit assumptions of the ongoing clinical reasoning research and to hopefully open much needed channels of communication between the different research communities involved in clinical reasoning research in the field.
临床推理是医学实践的核心,有着悠久的研究传统。然而,研究分散在不同的学术领域,具有不同的研究传统,发表在各种科学期刊上。这种多样性是概念混淆的一个来源。
我们试图探讨临床推理的潜在理论假设,旨在促进对该主题领域的全面概念和理论理解。特别是,我们询问了临床推理是如何定义和研究的,以及哪些概念化与这些用途相关。
对临床推理文献进行了范围综述。使用“滚雪球”搜索策略,回顾了更广泛的临床推理科学文献,以阐明临床推理研究背后的不同潜在概念假设,特别是医学教育领域的假设。这些文献包括医学教育以及医学教育以外的其他学术领域的推理研究,这些研究与临床推理相关。共有 124 篇出版物被纳入审查。
呈现了临床推理研究的研究传统的详细描述。在回顾这项研究时,我们确定了临床推理的三种主要概念化:“作为认知活动的推理”、“作为情境化活动的推理”和“作为社会中介活动的推理”。这些概念化反映了临床推理的不同理论理解。每个概念化都由其自身的一套认识论假设来定义,我们已经识别并描述了这些假设。
我们的工作旨在使正在进行的临床推理研究的隐含假设引起关注,并希望在该领域涉及临床推理研究的不同研究社区之间开辟急需的沟通渠道。