Effects of SNAPPS in clinical reasoning teaching: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Diagnosis Pub Date : 2024-03-07 eCollection Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1515/dx-2023-0149
Javier A Flores-Cohaila, Sonia F Vizcarra-Jiménez, Milagros F Bermúdez-Peláez, Fritz Fidel Vascones-Román, Marco Rivarola-Hidalgo, Alvaro Taype-Rondan
{"title":"Effects of SNAPPS in clinical reasoning teaching: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Javier A Flores-Cohaila, Sonia F Vizcarra-Jiménez, Milagros F Bermúdez-Peláez, Fritz Fidel Vascones-Román, Marco Rivarola-Hidalgo, Alvaro Taype-Rondan","doi":"10.1515/dx-2023-0149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical reasoning is crucial in medical practice, yet its teaching faces challenges due to varied clinical experiences, limited time, and absence from competency frameworks. Despite efforts, effective teaching methodologies remain elusive. Strategies like the One Minute Preceptor (OMP) and SNAPPS are proposed as solutions, particularly in workplace settings. SNAPPS, introduced in 2003, offers a structured approach but lacks comprehensive evidence of its effectiveness. Methodological shortcomings hinder discerning its specific effects. Therefore, a systematic review is proposed to evaluate SNAPPS' impact on clinical reasoning teaching.</p><p><strong>Content: </strong>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNAPPS against other methods. Data selection and extraction were performed in duplicate. Bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated using Cochrane RoB-2 and GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>We identified five RCTs performed on medical students and residents. Two compared SNAPPS with an active control such as One Minute Preceptor or training with feedback. None reported the effects of SNAPPS in workplace settings (Kirkpatrick Level 3) or patients (Kirkpatrick Level 4). Low to moderate certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS increases the total presentation length by increasing discussion length. Low to moderate certainty of evidence may increase the number of differential diagnoses and the expression of uncertainties. Low certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS may increase the odds of trainees initiating a management plan and seeking clarification.</p><p><strong>Outlook: </strong>Evidence from this systematic review suggests that SNAPPS has some advantages in terms of clinical reasoning, self-directed learning outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, it appears more beneficial when used by residents than medical students. However, future research should explore outcomes outside SNAPPS-related outcomes, such as workplace or patient-related outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":"220-230"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0149","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical reasoning is crucial in medical practice, yet its teaching faces challenges due to varied clinical experiences, limited time, and absence from competency frameworks. Despite efforts, effective teaching methodologies remain elusive. Strategies like the One Minute Preceptor (OMP) and SNAPPS are proposed as solutions, particularly in workplace settings. SNAPPS, introduced in 2003, offers a structured approach but lacks comprehensive evidence of its effectiveness. Methodological shortcomings hinder discerning its specific effects. Therefore, a systematic review is proposed to evaluate SNAPPS' impact on clinical reasoning teaching.

Content: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNAPPS against other methods. Data selection and extraction were performed in duplicate. Bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated using Cochrane RoB-2 and GRADE approach.

Summary: We identified five RCTs performed on medical students and residents. Two compared SNAPPS with an active control such as One Minute Preceptor or training with feedback. None reported the effects of SNAPPS in workplace settings (Kirkpatrick Level 3) or patients (Kirkpatrick Level 4). Low to moderate certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS increases the total presentation length by increasing discussion length. Low to moderate certainty of evidence may increase the number of differential diagnoses and the expression of uncertainties. Low certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS may increase the odds of trainees initiating a management plan and seeking clarification.

Outlook: Evidence from this systematic review suggests that SNAPPS has some advantages in terms of clinical reasoning, self-directed learning outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, it appears more beneficial when used by residents than medical students. However, future research should explore outcomes outside SNAPPS-related outcomes, such as workplace or patient-related outcomes.

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
SNAPPS在临床推理教学中的效果:随机对照试验的系统回顾与荟萃分析。
简介临床推理在医学实践中至关重要,但由于临床经验不同、时间有限以及能力框架的缺失,临床推理的教学面临挑战。尽管付出了努力,但有效的教学方法仍然难以实现。人们提出了 "一分钟前导"(OMP)和 "SNAPPS "等策略作为解决方案,尤其是在工作场所。2003 年推出的 SNAPPS 提供了一种结构化的方法,但缺乏其有效性的全面证据。方法上的缺陷阻碍了对其具体效果的辨别。因此,我们提出了一项系统性综述,以评估 SNAPPS 对临床推理教学的影响:内容:我们在 PubMed、EMBASE 和 CINAHL 中检索了将 SNAPPS 与其他方法进行比较的随机对照试验 (RCT)。数据选择和提取一式两份。采用 Cochrane RoB-2 和 GRADE 方法评估了证据的偏倚性和确定性。摘要:我们确定了五项针对医学生和住院医师的 RCT。其中两项将SNAPPS与 "一分钟戒律 "或带反馈的培训等积极对照进行了比较。没有一项研究报告了SNAPPS在工作场所(Kirkpatrick 3级)或患者(Kirkpatrick 4级)中的效果。中低度确定性证据表明,SNAPPS 可通过增加讨论时长来增加总演示时长。中低度确定性证据表明,SNAPPS 可能会增加鉴别诊断的数量和不确定性的表达。低度确定性证据表明,SNAPPS 可增加受训者启动管理计划和寻求澄清的几率:本系统综述的证据表明,SNAPPS 在临床推理、自主学习成果和成本效益方面具有一定优势。此外,与医学生相比,住院医师使用 SNAPPS 似乎更有益处。不过,未来的研究应探讨 SNAPPS 相关成果以外的成果,如工作场所或患者相关成果。
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
Diagnosis
Diagnosis MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Diagnosis focuses on how diagnosis can be advanced, how it is taught, and how and why it can fail, leading to diagnostic errors. The journal welcomes both fundamental and applied works, improvement initiatives, opinions, and debates to encourage new thinking on improving this critical aspect of healthcare quality.  Topics: -Factors that promote diagnostic quality and safety -Clinical reasoning -Diagnostic errors in medicine -The factors that contribute to diagnostic error: human factors, cognitive issues, and system-related breakdowns -Improving the value of diagnosis – eliminating waste and unnecessary testing -How culture and removing blame promote awareness of diagnostic errors -Training and education related to clinical reasoning and diagnostic skills -Advances in laboratory testing and imaging that improve diagnostic capability -Local, national and international initiatives to reduce diagnostic error
期刊最新文献
A decision support system to increase the compliance of diagnostic imaging examinations with imaging guidelines: focused on cerebrovascular diseases. Bayesian intelligence for medical diagnosis: a pilot study on patient disposition for emergency medicine chest pain. Bringing team science to the ambulatory diagnostic process: how do patients and clinicians develop shared mental models? From stable teamwork to dynamic teaming in the ambulatory care diagnostic process. Interventions to improve timely cancer diagnosis: an integrative review.
×
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