Wenhui Zhu , Kangle Shi , Ying Hu , Ruikun Wang , Xiaocong Wang , Shiyao Wang , Xinping Yu , Fangyan Yang , Zhijun Wang , Juan Wang , Cong Lei , Yuefan Yu , Xiaoyu Liu , Qian Liu , Qinggang Meng
{"title":"Thinking style preferences of Chinese and Western physicians: A mixed-methods study","authors":"Wenhui Zhu , Kangle Shi , Ying Hu , Ruikun Wang , Xiaocong Wang , Shiyao Wang , Xinping Yu , Fangyan Yang , Zhijun Wang , Juan Wang , Cong Lei , Yuefan Yu , Xiaoyu Liu , Qian Liu , Qinggang Meng","doi":"10.1016/j.eujim.2024.102383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine (WM) stem from distinct cultural and regional contexts, with the primary difference in their approaches to clinical reasoning. This study aims to investigate the cognitive preferences of TCM and WM physicians in clinical diagnosis and treatment, providing valuable insights for the advancement of TCM.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We implemented a two-phase mixed methods approach comprising questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The Thinking Style Inventory (TSI) was used to evaluate the thinking styles of physicians through convenience sampling. Additionally, a total of six physicians (three practicing TCM and three WM) were selected by purposive sampling and open-ended responses regarding self-cognition and influencing factors were analyzed using thematic analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 150 surveys and six interviews consistently indicated a preference among both TCM and WM physicians for Legislative, Executive, Hierarchical, Liberal, and External styles. In contrast, TCM physicians exhibited a tendency towards Legislative and Liberal styles, whereas WM physicians leaned towards Executive and Judicial styles. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed four themes: self-understanding, thinking characteristics, influencing factors, and style changes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our study identified that within TCM and WM, a blend of shared characteristics and distinct individuality in thinking styles existed, exhibiting variations in the growth processes of physicians. Both TCM and WM physicians attributed the formation of their thinking styles to factors such as education, internship experience, Chinese social culture and personal disposition. Furthermore, empirical research methods emerged as effective tools for studying clinical reasoning in healthcare contexts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11932,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Integrative Medicine","volume":"69 ","pages":"Article 102383"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000532/pdfft?md5=7d0fa68cd1bb7fbdcf71eb547c871c89&pid=1-s2.0-S1876382024000532-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Integrative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000532","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine (WM) stem from distinct cultural and regional contexts, with the primary difference in their approaches to clinical reasoning. This study aims to investigate the cognitive preferences of TCM and WM physicians in clinical diagnosis and treatment, providing valuable insights for the advancement of TCM.
Methods
We implemented a two-phase mixed methods approach comprising questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The Thinking Style Inventory (TSI) was used to evaluate the thinking styles of physicians through convenience sampling. Additionally, a total of six physicians (three practicing TCM and three WM) were selected by purposive sampling and open-ended responses regarding self-cognition and influencing factors were analyzed using thematic analysis.
Results
A total of 150 surveys and six interviews consistently indicated a preference among both TCM and WM physicians for Legislative, Executive, Hierarchical, Liberal, and External styles. In contrast, TCM physicians exhibited a tendency towards Legislative and Liberal styles, whereas WM physicians leaned towards Executive and Judicial styles. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed four themes: self-understanding, thinking characteristics, influencing factors, and style changes.
Conclusion
Our study identified that within TCM and WM, a blend of shared characteristics and distinct individuality in thinking styles existed, exhibiting variations in the growth processes of physicians. Both TCM and WM physicians attributed the formation of their thinking styles to factors such as education, internship experience, Chinese social culture and personal disposition. Furthermore, empirical research methods emerged as effective tools for studying clinical reasoning in healthcare contexts.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Integrative Medicine (EuJIM) considers manuscripts from a wide range of complementary and integrative health care disciplines, with a particular focus on whole systems approaches, public health, self management and traditional medical systems. The journal strives to connect conventional medicine and evidence based complementary medicine. We encourage submissions reporting research with relevance for integrative clinical practice and interprofessional education.
EuJIM aims to be of interest to both conventional and integrative audiences, including healthcare practitioners, researchers, health care organisations, educationalists, and all those who seek objective and critical information on integrative medicine. To achieve this aim EuJIM provides an innovative international and interdisciplinary platform linking researchers and clinicians.
The journal focuses primarily on original research articles including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, other clinical studies, qualitative, observational and epidemiological studies. In addition we welcome short reviews, opinion articles and contributions relating to health services and policy, health economics and psychology.