Games to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education: a scoping review.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Medical Education Online Pub Date : 2024-12-31 Epub Date: 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1080/10872981.2024.2316971
Gilbert Koelewijn, Marije P Hennus, Helianthe S M Kort, Joost Frenkel, Thijs van Houwelingen
{"title":"Games to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education: a scoping review.","authors":"Gilbert Koelewijn, Marije P Hennus, Helianthe S M Kort, Joost Frenkel, Thijs van Houwelingen","doi":"10.1080/10872981.2024.2316971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Given the complexity of teaching clinical reasoning to (future) healthcare professionals, the utilization of serious games has become popular for supporting clinical reasoning education. This scoping review outlines games designed to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education, with a specific emphasis on their alignment with the 8-step clinical reasoning cycle and the reflective practice framework, fundamental for effective learning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review using systematic searches across seven databases (PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) was conducted. Game characteristics, technical requirements, and incorporation of clinical reasoning cycle steps were analyzed. Additional game information was obtained from the authors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen unique games emerged, primarily simulation and escape room genres. Most games incorporated the following clinical reasoning steps: patient consideration (step 1), cue collection (step 2), intervention (step 6), and outcome evaluation (step 7). Processing information (step 3) and understanding the patient's problem (step 4) were less prevalent, while goal setting (step 5) and reflection (step 8) were least integrated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All serious games reviewed show potential for improving clinical reasoning skills, but thoughtful alignment with learning objectives and contextual factors is vital. While this study aids health professions educators in understanding how games may support teaching of clinical reasoning, further research is needed to optimize their effective use in education. Notably, most games lack explicit incorporation of all clinical reasoning cycle steps, especially reflection, limiting its role in reflective practice. Hence, we recommend prioritizing a systematic clinical reasoning model with explicit reflective steps when using serious games for teaching clinical reasoning.</p>","PeriodicalId":47656,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education Online","volume":"29 1","pages":"2316971"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10896137/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education Online","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2024.2316971","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Given the complexity of teaching clinical reasoning to (future) healthcare professionals, the utilization of serious games has become popular for supporting clinical reasoning education. This scoping review outlines games designed to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education, with a specific emphasis on their alignment with the 8-step clinical reasoning cycle and the reflective practice framework, fundamental for effective learning.

Methods: A scoping review using systematic searches across seven databases (PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) was conducted. Game characteristics, technical requirements, and incorporation of clinical reasoning cycle steps were analyzed. Additional game information was obtained from the authors.

Results: Nineteen unique games emerged, primarily simulation and escape room genres. Most games incorporated the following clinical reasoning steps: patient consideration (step 1), cue collection (step 2), intervention (step 6), and outcome evaluation (step 7). Processing information (step 3) and understanding the patient's problem (step 4) were less prevalent, while goal setting (step 5) and reflection (step 8) were least integrated.

Conclusion: All serious games reviewed show potential for improving clinical reasoning skills, but thoughtful alignment with learning objectives and contextual factors is vital. While this study aids health professions educators in understanding how games may support teaching of clinical reasoning, further research is needed to optimize their effective use in education. Notably, most games lack explicit incorporation of all clinical reasoning cycle steps, especially reflection, limiting its role in reflective practice. Hence, we recommend prioritizing a systematic clinical reasoning model with explicit reflective steps when using serious games for teaching clinical reasoning.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
支持卫生专业教育中临床推理教学的游戏:范围界定综述。
导言:鉴于向(未来)医疗保健专业人员教授临床推理的复杂性,利用严肃游戏支持临床推理教育已成为一种流行趋势。本范围综述概述了旨在支持卫生专业教育中临床推理教学的游戏,并特别强调了这些游戏与临床推理八步骤循环和反思性实践框架的一致性,这是有效学习的基础:方法:通过对 7 个数据库(PubMed、CINAHL、ERIC、PsycINFO、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Embase)的系统检索进行了范围界定审查。分析了游戏的特点、技术要求和临床推理周期步骤。还从作者处获得了更多游戏信息:结果:共出现了 19 款独特的游戏,主要是模拟和密室逃脱类型。大多数游戏都包含以下临床推理步骤:考虑病人(第 1 步)、收集线索(第 2 步)、干预(第 6 步)和结果评估(第 7 步)。处理信息(第 3 步)和了解病人的问题(第 4 步)不太普遍,而设定目标(第 5 步)和反思(第 8 步)则最少:结论:所审查的所有严肃游戏都显示出提高临床推理技能的潜力,但与学习目标和背景因素的周密协调至关重要。虽然这项研究有助于卫生专业教育工作者了解游戏如何支持临床推理教学,但要优化游戏在教育中的有效应用,还需要进一步的研究。值得注意的是,大多数游戏没有明确纳入临床推理周期的所有步骤,尤其是反思,从而限制了其在反思性实践中的作用。因此,我们建议在使用严肃游戏进行临床推理教学时,优先考虑具有明确反思步骤的系统化临床推理模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Education Online
Medical Education Online EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education Online is an open access journal of health care education, publishing peer-reviewed research, perspectives, reviews, and early documentation of new ideas and trends. Medical Education Online aims to disseminate information on the education and training of physicians and other health care professionals. Manuscripts may address any aspect of health care education and training, including, but not limited to: -Basic science education -Clinical science education -Residency education -Learning theory -Problem-based learning (PBL) -Curriculum development -Research design and statistics -Measurement and evaluation -Faculty development -Informatics/web
期刊最新文献
Medical law; promotion of medicine curriculum: a letter to editor. Tips for developing a coaching program in medical education. High- and low-achieving international medical students' perceptions of the factors influencing their academic performance at Chinese universities. A Medical Education Research Library: key research topics and associated experts. Financial barriers and inequity in medical education in India: challenges to training a diverse and representative healthcare workforce.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1