Using an experiential learning model to teach clinical reasoning theory and cognitive bias: an evaluation of a first-year medical student curriculum.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Medical Education Online Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1080/10872981.2022.2153782
Justin J Choi, Jeanie Gribben, Myriam Lin, Erika L Abramson, Juliet Aizer
{"title":"Using an experiential learning model to teach clinical reasoning theory and cognitive bias: an evaluation of a first-year medical student curriculum.","authors":"Justin J Choi, Jeanie Gribben, Myriam Lin, Erika L Abramson, Juliet Aizer","doi":"10.1080/10872981.2022.2153782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most medical students entering clerkships have limited understanding of clinical reasoning concepts. The value of teaching theories of clinical reasoning and cognitive biases to first-year medical students is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the value of explicitly teaching clinical reasoning theory and cognitive bias to first-year medical students.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using Kolb's experiential learning model, we introduced dual process theory, script theory, and cognitive biases in teaching clinical reasoning to first-year medical students at an academic medical center in New York City between January and June 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, instruction was transitioned to a distance learning format in March 2020. The curriculum included a series of written clinical reasoning examinations with facilitated small group discussions. Written self-assessments prompted each student to reflect on the experience, draw conclusions about their clinical reasoning, and plan for future encounters involving clinical reasoning. We evaluated the value of the curriculum using mixed-methods to analyze faculty assessments, student self-assessment questionnaires, and an end-of-curriculum anonymous questionnaire eliciting student feedback.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 318 total examinations of 106 students, 254 (80%) had a complete problem representation, while 199 (63%) of problem representations were considered concise. The most common cognitive biases described by students in their clinical reasoning were anchoring bias, availability bias, and premature closure. Four major themes emerged as valuable outcomes of the CREs as identified by students: (1) synthesis of medical knowledge; (2) enhanced ability to generate differential diagnoses; (3) development of self-efficacy related to clinical reasoning; (4) raised awareness of personal cognitive biases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found that explicitly teaching clinical reasoning theory and cognitive biases using an experiential learning model provides first-year medical students with valuable opportunities for developing knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy related to clinical reasoning.</p>","PeriodicalId":47656,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education Online","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9718553/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education Online","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2153782","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Most medical students entering clerkships have limited understanding of clinical reasoning concepts. The value of teaching theories of clinical reasoning and cognitive biases to first-year medical students is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the value of explicitly teaching clinical reasoning theory and cognitive bias to first-year medical students.

Methods: Using Kolb's experiential learning model, we introduced dual process theory, script theory, and cognitive biases in teaching clinical reasoning to first-year medical students at an academic medical center in New York City between January and June 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, instruction was transitioned to a distance learning format in March 2020. The curriculum included a series of written clinical reasoning examinations with facilitated small group discussions. Written self-assessments prompted each student to reflect on the experience, draw conclusions about their clinical reasoning, and plan for future encounters involving clinical reasoning. We evaluated the value of the curriculum using mixed-methods to analyze faculty assessments, student self-assessment questionnaires, and an end-of-curriculum anonymous questionnaire eliciting student feedback.

Results: Among 318 total examinations of 106 students, 254 (80%) had a complete problem representation, while 199 (63%) of problem representations were considered concise. The most common cognitive biases described by students in their clinical reasoning were anchoring bias, availability bias, and premature closure. Four major themes emerged as valuable outcomes of the CREs as identified by students: (1) synthesis of medical knowledge; (2) enhanced ability to generate differential diagnoses; (3) development of self-efficacy related to clinical reasoning; (4) raised awareness of personal cognitive biases.

Conclusions: We found that explicitly teaching clinical reasoning theory and cognitive biases using an experiential learning model provides first-year medical students with valuable opportunities for developing knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy related to 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
使用体验式学习模式教授临床推理理论和认知偏见:对一年级医学生课程的评估。
背景:大多数进入文书工作的医学生对临床推理概念的理解有限。临床推理和认知偏见理论对一年级医学生的教学价值尚不清楚。本研究旨在评估明确教授临床推理理论和认知偏见对一年级医学生的价值。方法:使用Kolb的经验学习模型,我们在2020年1月至6月期间,在纽约市一所学术医学中心向一年级医学生教授临床推理时引入了双过程理论、脚本理论和认知偏见。由于新冠肺炎大流行,教学于2020年3月转变为远程学习形式。课程包括一系列书面临床推理考试,并有助于小组讨论。书面的自我评估促使每个学生反思自己的经历,对自己的临床推理得出结论,并计划未来与临床推理的接触。我们使用混合方法评估课程的价值,分析教师评估、学生自我评估问卷和课程结束时引发学生反馈的匿名问卷。结果:在106名学生的318次考试中,254次(80%)有完整的问题表征,199次(63%)的问题表征被认为是简洁的。学生在临床推理中描述的最常见的认知偏见是锚定偏见、可用性偏见和过早闭合。学生们确定了四个主要主题作为CRE的宝贵成果:(1)医学知识的综合;(2) 增强产生鉴别诊断的能力;(3) 与临床推理相关的自我效能感的发展;(4) 提高了人们对个人认知偏见的认识。结论:我们发现,使用体验式学习模式明确教授临床推理理论和认知偏见,为一年级医学生发展与临床推理相关的知识、技能和自我效能提供了宝贵的机会。
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