干预技能--医学教育及其他领域被忽视的研究领域。

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES GMS Journal for Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-09-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3205/zma001703
Constanze Richters, Ralf Schmidmaier, Vitaliy Popov, Johann Schredelseker, Frank Fischer, Martin R Fischer
{"title":"干预技能--医学教育及其他领域被忽视的研究领域。","authors":"Constanze Richters, Ralf Schmidmaier, Vitaliy Popov, Johann Schredelseker, Frank Fischer, Martin R Fischer","doi":"10.3205/zma001703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Intervention</i> reasoning as a critical component of clinical reasoning has been understudied in medical education in contrast to the well-established field of diagnostic reasoning. This resonates in a lack of comprehensive understanding of the cognitive processes involved and a deficit in research to promote intervention skills in future clinicians. In this commentary, we present a conceptual framework for intervention reasoning that includes four phases: generating, selecting, implementing, and evaluating interventions. The conceptualization highlights cognitive processes such as developing interventions based on a patient's diagnosis and signs and symptoms; selecting the most appropriate option by contrasting, prioritizing, and evaluating interventions in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, and the patient's context-specific needs; and predicting patient outcomes within so-called \"developmental corridors\" to adjust treatments accordingly. In addition to these cognitive processes, interventions require collaborative activities, such as sharing information with other care providers, distributing roles among care teams, or acting together. Future research should validate the proposed framework, examine the impact of intervention reasoning on clinical outcomes, and identify effective training methods (e.g., simulation and AI-based approaches). In addition, it would be valuable to explore the transferability and generalizability of the model to other areas of health education and contexts outside of health education.</p>","PeriodicalId":45850,"journal":{"name":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11474644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intervention skills - a neglected field of research in medical education and beyond.\",\"authors\":\"Constanze Richters, Ralf Schmidmaier, Vitaliy Popov, Johann Schredelseker, Frank Fischer, Martin R Fischer\",\"doi\":\"10.3205/zma001703\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Intervention</i> reasoning as a critical component of clinical reasoning has been understudied in medical education in contrast to the well-established field of diagnostic reasoning. This resonates in a lack of comprehensive understanding of the cognitive processes involved and a deficit in research to promote intervention skills in future clinicians. In this commentary, we present a conceptual framework for intervention reasoning that includes four phases: generating, selecting, implementing, and evaluating interventions. The conceptualization highlights cognitive processes such as developing interventions based on a patient's diagnosis and signs and symptoms; selecting the most appropriate option by contrasting, prioritizing, and evaluating interventions in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, and the patient's context-specific needs; and predicting patient outcomes within so-called \\\"developmental corridors\\\" to adjust treatments accordingly. In addition to these cognitive processes, interventions require collaborative activities, such as sharing information with other care providers, distributing roles among care teams, or acting together. Future research should validate the proposed framework, examine the impact of intervention reasoning on clinical outcomes, and identify effective training methods (e.g., simulation and AI-based approaches). In addition, it would be valuable to explore the transferability and generalizability of the model to other areas of health education and contexts outside of health education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GMS Journal for Medical Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11474644/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GMS Journal for Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001703\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

干预推理是临床推理的一个重要组成部分,但与诊断推理这一成熟领域相比,干预推理在医学教育中的研究一直不足。这导致人们对其中涉及的认知过程缺乏全面的了解,在促进未来临床医生干预技能的研究方面也存在不足。在这篇评论中,我们提出了干预推理的概念框架,包括四个阶段:产生、选择、实施和评估干预。该概念框架强调了认知过程,如根据患者的诊断、体征和症状制定干预措施;通过对干预措施的可行性、有效性和患者的具体需求进行对比、优先排序和评估,选择最合适的方案;在所谓的 "发展走廊 "内预测患者的预后,从而相应地调整治疗方法。除了这些认知过程外,干预措施还需要协作活动,如与其他护理提供者共享信息、在护理团队之间分配角色或共同行动。未来的研究应验证所提出的框架,检查干预推理对临床结果的影响,并确定有效的培训方法(如模拟和基于人工智能的方法)。此外,探索该模型在其他健康教育领域和健康教育之外的环境中的可转移性和通用性也很有价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Intervention skills - a neglected field of research in medical education and beyond.

Intervention reasoning as a critical component of clinical reasoning has been understudied in medical education in contrast to the well-established field of diagnostic reasoning. This resonates in a lack of comprehensive understanding of the cognitive processes involved and a deficit in research to promote intervention skills in future clinicians. In this commentary, we present a conceptual framework for intervention reasoning that includes four phases: generating, selecting, implementing, and evaluating interventions. The conceptualization highlights cognitive processes such as developing interventions based on a patient's diagnosis and signs and symptoms; selecting the most appropriate option by contrasting, prioritizing, and evaluating interventions in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, and the patient's context-specific needs; and predicting patient outcomes within so-called "developmental corridors" to adjust treatments accordingly. In addition to these cognitive processes, interventions require collaborative activities, such as sharing information with other care providers, distributing roles among care teams, or acting together. Future research should validate the proposed framework, examine the impact of intervention reasoning on clinical outcomes, and identify effective training methods (e.g., simulation and AI-based approaches). In addition, it would be valuable to explore the transferability and generalizability of the model to other areas of health education and contexts outside of health education.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
GMS Journal for Medical Education
GMS Journal for Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
30
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: GMS Journal for Medical Education (GMS J Med Educ) – formerly GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung – publishes scientific articles on all aspects of undergraduate and graduate education in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy and other health professions. Research and review articles, project reports, short communications as well as discussion papers and comments may be submitted. There is a special focus on empirical studies which are methodologically sound and lead to results that are relevant beyond the respective institution, profession or country. Please feel free to submit qualitative as well as quantitative studies. We especially welcome submissions by students. It is the mission of GMS Journal for Medical Education to contribute to furthering scientific knowledge in the German-speaking countries as well as internationally and thus to foster the improvement of teaching and learning and to build an evidence base for undergraduate and graduate education. To this end, the journal has set up an editorial board with international experts. All manuscripts submitted are subjected to a clearly structured peer review process. All articles are published bilingually in English and German and are available with unrestricted open access. Thus, GMS Journal for Medical Education is available to a broad international readership. GMS Journal for Medical Education is published as an unrestricted open access journal with at least four issues per year. In addition, special issues on current topics in medical education research are also published. Until 2015 the journal was published under its German name GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. By changing its name to GMS Journal for Medical Education, we wish to underline our international mission.
期刊最新文献
"Powerful placebo": A teaching and learning concept addressing placebo and nocebo effects in competency-based communication training. Attitudinal changes of undergraduate students learning online interprofessional education for patient safety: Comparative evaluation of an online program using the DID method. EYE-ECG: An RCT of the influence of student characteristics and expert eye-tracking videos with cued retrospective reporting on students' ECG interpretation skills. Formative key feature examinations as innovative teaching approach in dental education: A project report. Insights into the meaning of medical students' studies. An online survey at two medical faculties.
×
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