Introduction to Clinical Reasoning: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Introduction == | == Introduction == | ||
Clinical reasoning is a vital part of effective rehabilitation. It plays an important role in establishing professional autonomy and improving patient outcomes. Various definitions of clinical reasoning are available in the literature as well as different clinical reasoning strategies. This page will focus on some of | Clinical reasoning is a vital part of effective rehabilitation. It plays an important role in establishing professional autonomy and improving patient outcomes. Various definitions of clinical reasoning are available in the literature, as well as different clinical reasoning strategies. This page will focus on some definitions of clinical reasoning and strategies employed by different rehabilitation professionals based on factors such as time, profession, and purpose. | ||
== Definitions of Clinical Reasoning == | == Definitions of Clinical Reasoning == | ||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* "Clinical reasoning refers to the thinking and decision-making processes that are used in clinical practice."<ref name=":11">Edwards I, Jones M, Carr J, Braunack-Mayer A, Jensen GM. Clinical reasoning strategies in physical therapy. Physical therapy. 2004 Apr 1;84(4):312-30.</ref> | * "Clinical reasoning refers to the thinking and decision-making processes that are used in clinical practice."<ref name=":11">Edwards I, Jones M, Carr J, Braunack-Mayer A, Jensen GM. Clinical reasoning strategies in physical therapy. Physical therapy. 2004 Apr 1;84(4):312-30.</ref> | ||
* Clinical reasoning in physical therapy could be conceptualised as "integrating cognitive, psychomotor, and affective skills. It is contextual in nature and involves both therapist and client perspectives. It is adaptive, iterative, and collaborative with the intended outcome being a biopsychosocial approach to patient/client management."<ref name=":4">Huhn K, Gilliland SJ, Black LL, Wainwright SF, Christensen N. [https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/99/4/440/5212793?login=true Clinical reasoning in physical therapy: a concept analysis.] Physical therapy. 2019 Apr;99(4):440-56.</ref> | * Clinical reasoning in physical therapy could be conceptualised as "integrating cognitive, psychomotor, and affective skills. It is contextual in nature and involves both therapist and client perspectives. It is adaptive, iterative, and collaborative with the intended outcome being a biopsychosocial approach to patient/client management."<ref name=":4">Huhn K, Gilliland SJ, Black LL, Wainwright SF, Christensen N. [https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/99/4/440/5212793?login=true Clinical reasoning in physical therapy: a concept analysis.] Physical therapy. 2019 Apr;99(4):440-56.</ref> | ||
* In occupational therapy | * In occupational therapy, clinical reasoning is defined as<ref name=":5">da Silva Araujo A, Anne Kinsella E, Thomas A, Demonari Gomes L, Quevedo Marcolino T. Clinical Reasoning in Occupational Therapy Practice: A Scoping Review of Qualitative and Conceptual Peer-Reviewed Literature. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2022 May 1;76(3):7603205070.</ref>: | ||
** "a largely tacit, highly imagistic and deeply phenomenological mode of thinking" | ** "a largely tacit, highly imagistic and deeply phenomenological mode of thinking" | ||
** "the process used by practitioners to plan, direct, perform and reflect on client care" | ** "the process used by practitioners to plan, direct, perform and reflect on client care" | ||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
== Clinical Reasoning According to Timing == | == Clinical Reasoning According to Timing == | ||
Kahneman<ref name=":16" /> describes two systems of thought based on the time it takes for clinicians to clinically reason. '''System 1''' is instinctual and fast, whereas''' System 2''' is methodical and deliberate.<ref name=":16">Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, <nowiki>ISBN 978-0374275631</nowiki>. Reviewed by Freeman Dyson in New York Review of Books. 2011 Dec 22:40-4.</ref> <ref name=":1">Peters A, Vanstone M, Monteiro S, Norman G, Sherbino J, Sibbald M. Examining the influence of context and professional culture on clinical reasoning through rhetorical-narrative analysis. Qualitative health research. 2017 May;27(6):866-76.</ref> | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+Table 1. Comparison between two systems of thought. | |+Table 1. Comparison between two systems of thought. | ||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Intuition | |Intuition | ||
|Tends to occur in new unfamiliar situations | |Tends to occur in new, unfamiliar situations | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Pattern recognition | |Pattern recognition | ||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
{{#ev:youtube|LekUj7dlxlw|300}}<ref>ACAPT. Clinical Reasoning in Physical Therapy: Fast & Slow Thinking. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LekUj7dlxlw [last accessed 02/03/2024]</ref> | {{#ev:youtube|LekUj7dlxlw|300}}<ref>ACAPT. Clinical Reasoning in Physical Therapy: Fast & Slow Thinking. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LekUj7dlxlw [last accessed 02/03/2024]</ref> | ||
=== Novice versus Expert Clinical Reasoning === | === Novice versus Expert Clinical Reasoning === | ||
Knowledge structures and clinical reasoning skills between expert and novice clinicians | Knowledge structures and clinical reasoning skills differ between expert and novice clinicians. Experienced clinicians use experience to develop scripts for pattern recognition. Rather than investigating each sign and symptom individually, they chunk information to form a pattern. This allows them to compare whether the current situation is similar to the previous situation. Experts rely on fast thinking until they notice that something is different. When they notice something is different, they stop, reflect on how it is different, and gather more information.<ref name=":2" /> | ||
Novice clinicians must rely more on slow thinking because they don't have the experience to build scripts. They rely on knowledge networks which are not that easily activated. More information is needed before a hypothesis can be created. This is a slower, time-consuming process. A novice clinician's clinical reasoning is "less orderly, less goal-orientated and more time-consuming."<ref name=":2" /> | Novice clinicians must rely more on slow thinking because they don't have the experience to build scripts. They rely on knowledge networks which are not that easily activated. More information is needed before a hypothesis can be created. This is a slower, time-consuming process. A novice clinician's clinical reasoning is "less orderly, less goal-orientated and more time-consuming."<ref name=":2" /> | ||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
== Clinical Reasoning in Different Professions == | == Clinical Reasoning in Different Professions == | ||
In a recent concept analysis, Huhn et al.<ref name=":4" /> | In a recent concept analysis, Huhn et al.<ref name=":4" /> described clinical reasoning within the context of physical therapy. They also explored similarities and differences in clinical reasoning between different healthcare professions.<ref name=":4" /> They found that the purpose (the area where the emphasis is focused) and terminology differ across different professions.<ref name=":4" /> Some of their results are shown in Table 2. If you would like to read more about Huhn et al's<ref name=":4" /> findings, please see: [https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/99/4/440/5212793 Clinical reasoning in physical therapy: a concept analysis.] | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+Table 2. Clinical Reasoning in Different Professions, Areas of Emphasis and Related Terminology in Literature<ref name=":4" /> | |+Table 2. Clinical Reasoning in Different Professions, Areas of Emphasis and Related Terminology in Literature<ref name=":4" /> | ||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
|Pharmacy | |Pharmacy | ||
|Thinking skills | |Thinking skills | ||
|Critical thinking; problem solving | |Critical thinking; problem-solving | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Psychology | |Psychology | ||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Prosthetist and Orthotist | |Prosthetist and Orthotist | ||
|Integration of the ICF into decision-making<ref name=":6" /> | |Integration of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) into decision-making<ref name=":6" /> | ||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
|} | |} | ||
Because the area of emphasis and terminology differ between rehabilitation professions, organising clinical reasoning according to purpose or goal can help to guide the selection of the clinical reasoning process.<ref name=":7" /> | |||
== Clinical Reasoning According to Purpose == | == Clinical Reasoning According to Purpose == | ||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
* conducting an assessment and classifying, making a diagnosis | * conducting an assessment and classifying, making a diagnosis | ||
* developing a rehabilitation plan which may include | * developing a rehabilitation plan, which may include establishing a prognosis, identifying the need for referral, resource allocation | ||
* implementing rehabilitation interventions (management, intervention, patient education) and evaluating progress toward desired outcomes | * implementing rehabilitation interventions (management, intervention, patient education) and evaluating progress toward desired outcomes | ||
* purpose to engage and establish a therapeutic alliance | * purpose to engage and establish a therapeutic alliance | ||
Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
|+Table 3. Clinical Reasoning Strategies and Definitions According to Purpose | |+Table 3. Clinical Reasoning Strategies and Definitions According to Purpose | ||
!Purpose | !Purpose | ||
!Clinical Reasoning Strategies Employed and Definition | !Clinical Reasoning Strategies Employed and Their Definition | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Identifying diagnosis or classification | |Identifying diagnosis or classification | ||
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
** Within the framework of hypothetical deductive reasoning, patient cues serve as key elements in creating multiple hypotheses. These hypotheses undergo continuous updates and refinement as new information is incorporated.<ref name=":8" /><ref>Rothstein JM, Echternach JL, Riddle DL. The Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians II (HOAC II): a guide for patient management. Physical Therapy. 2003 May 1;83(5):455-70.</ref> | ** Within the framework of hypothetical deductive reasoning, patient cues serve as key elements in creating multiple hypotheses. These hypotheses undergo continuous updates and refinement as new information is incorporated.<ref name=":8" /><ref>Rothstein JM, Echternach JL, Riddle DL. The Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians II (HOAC II): a guide for patient management. Physical Therapy. 2003 May 1;83(5):455-70.</ref> | ||
* Narrative reasoning<ref name=":9">Mattingly C. The narrative nature of clinical reasoning. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1991 Nov 1;45(11):998-1005.</ref><ref>Mattingly C. In search of the good: Narrative reasoning in clinical practice. Medical anthropology quarterly. 1998 Sep;12(3):273-97.</ref><ref name=":10">Milota MM, van Thiel GJ, van Delden JJ. Narrative medicine as a medical education tool: a systematic review. Medical teacher. 2019 Jul 3;41(7):802-10.</ref><ref>Haines D, Wright J. Thinking in stories: Narrative reasoning of an occupational therapist supporting people with profound intellectual disabilities’ engagement in occupation. Occupational Therapy In Health Care. 2023 Jan 3;37(1):177-96.</ref> | * Narrative reasoning<ref name=":9">Mattingly C. The narrative nature of clinical reasoning. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1991 Nov 1;45(11):998-1005.</ref><ref>Mattingly C. In search of the good: Narrative reasoning in clinical practice. Medical anthropology quarterly. 1998 Sep;12(3):273-97.</ref><ref name=":10">Milota MM, van Thiel GJ, van Delden JJ. Narrative medicine as a medical education tool: a systematic review. Medical teacher. 2019 Jul 3;41(7):802-10.</ref><ref>Haines D, Wright J. Thinking in stories: Narrative reasoning of an occupational therapist supporting people with profound intellectual disabilities’ engagement in occupation. Occupational Therapy In Health Care. 2023 Jan 3;37(1):177-96.</ref> | ||
** Narrative reasoning utilises stories to depict clinical encounters, incorporating conditions, consequences, motivation and interaction.<ref name=":9" /> This | ** Narrative reasoning utilises stories to depict clinical encounters, incorporating conditions, consequences, motivation and interaction.<ref name=":9" /> This can help clinicians gain insight into the patient experience and foster empathy skills.<ref>Cruz EB, Caeiro C, Pereira C. A narrative reasoning course to promote patient-centred practice in a physiotherapy undergraduate programme: a qualitative study of final year students. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice. 2014 May 1;30(4):254-60.</ref> In an educational context, narrative reasoning involves sharing a story, individual reflection and the collaborative exchange of perspectives.<ref name=":10" /> | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Identifying diagnosis using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Framework | |Identifying diagnosis using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Framework | ||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
* Self-explanation | * Self-explanation | ||
** a rehabilitation professional aims to explain to | ** a rehabilitation professional aims to explain to themself their understanding of a clinical problem and its connection to basic biomedical and pathophysiology principles | ||
* Clinical reasoning mapping exercise | * Clinical reasoning mapping exercise | ||
** a highly organised map used to | ** a highly organised map used to represent knowledge structures visually. It provides a framework for the building of early illness scripts | ||
* Deliberate reflection | * Deliberate reflection | ||
** reflection during the diagnosis of a clinical case is encouraged, allowing clinicians to compare and contrast alternative diagnoses for the specific case | ** reflection during the diagnosis of a clinical case is encouraged, allowing clinicians to compare and contrast alternative diagnoses for the specific case |
Revision as of 02:57, 15 March 2024
Introduction[edit | edit source]
Clinical reasoning is a vital part of effective rehabilitation. It plays an important role in establishing professional autonomy and improving patient outcomes. Various definitions of clinical reasoning are available in the literature, as well as different clinical reasoning strategies. This page will focus on some definitions of clinical reasoning and strategies employed by different rehabilitation professionals based on factors such as time, profession, and purpose.
Definitions of Clinical Reasoning[edit | edit source]
There are multiple different definitions of clinical reasoning. Some of these definitions are listed below.
- "Clinical reasoning (or practice decision making) is a context-dependent way of thinking and decision making in professional practice to guide practice actions."[1]
- "Clinical reasoning refers to the thinking and decision-making processes that are used in clinical practice."[2]
- Clinical reasoning in physical therapy could be conceptualised as "integrating cognitive, psychomotor, and affective skills. It is contextual in nature and involves both therapist and client perspectives. It is adaptive, iterative, and collaborative with the intended outcome being a biopsychosocial approach to patient/client management."[3]
- In occupational therapy, clinical reasoning is defined as[4]:
- "a largely tacit, highly imagistic and deeply phenomenological mode of thinking"
- "the process used by practitioners to plan, direct, perform and reflect on client care"
- "as a mode of thought that involves all the thinking processes of the clinician as s/he moves into, through and out of the therapeutic relationship and therapy process with a client"
- Clinical reasoning is "a process in which the therapist, interacting with the patient and others (such as family members or others providing care), helps patients structure meaning, goals, and health management strategies based on clinical data, patient choices, and professional judgement and knowledge."[1]
- "Clinical reasoning is defined as a complex cognitive process leading to meaningful interpretation of patients' problems and formulation of an effective management plan"[5] [6]
- "Clinical reasoning reflects the thinking or reasoning that a health practitioner engages in to solve and manage a clinical problem. It has been described as a process or an outcome."[7]
Importance of Clinical Reasoning[edit | edit source]
Clinical Reasoning According to Timing[edit | edit source]
Kahneman[10] describes two systems of thought based on the time it takes for clinicians to clinically reason. System 1 is instinctual and fast, whereas System 2 is methodical and deliberate.[10] [11]
System 1 | System 2 |
---|---|
Automatic, fast thinking[11] | Hypothetical deductive[12] (inexperienced clinician or unfamiliar situations) |
Intuitive reasoning[13] | Slow effortful thinking, deliberate |
Heuristic | Useful for intentional thinking |
Intuition | Tends to occur in new, unfamiliar situations |
Pattern recognition | Tends to be reliable |
Experience | |
Can have errors and biases |
Novice versus Expert Clinical Reasoning[edit | edit source]
Knowledge structures and clinical reasoning skills differ between expert and novice clinicians. Experienced clinicians use experience to develop scripts for pattern recognition. Rather than investigating each sign and symptom individually, they chunk information to form a pattern. This allows them to compare whether the current situation is similar to the previous situation. Experts rely on fast thinking until they notice that something is different. When they notice something is different, they stop, reflect on how it is different, and gather more information.[8]
Novice clinicians must rely more on slow thinking because they don't have the experience to build scripts. They rely on knowledge networks which are not that easily activated. More information is needed before a hypothesis can be created. This is a slower, time-consuming process. A novice clinician's clinical reasoning is "less orderly, less goal-orientated and more time-consuming."[8]
Biases in Automatic Thinking[edit | edit source]
Rehabilitation professionals need to be aware of biases in automatic thinking.[15] Examples of types of biases include[15]:
- availability bias
- priority is given to the first thought that comes to mind
- recency bias
- give more weight to something recent
- confirmation bias
- gather selective information that favours a hypothesis
- premature closing bias
- end the decision-making process early and accept a diagnosis that has not been completely verified
Clinical Reasoning in Different Professions[edit | edit source]
In a recent concept analysis, Huhn et al.[3] described clinical reasoning within the context of physical therapy. They also explored similarities and differences in clinical reasoning between different healthcare professions.[3] They found that the purpose (the area where the emphasis is focused) and terminology differ across different professions.[3] Some of their results are shown in Table 2. If you would like to read more about Huhn et al's[3] findings, please see: Clinical reasoning in physical therapy: a concept analysis.
Profession | Area of Emphasis | Related Terminology (Synonyms for Clinical Reasoning) |
---|---|---|
Physician | Correct diagnosis | Decision making; diagnostic reasoning |
Nursing | Competence; establishing a nursing plan of care | Critical thinking; clinical reasoning |
Pharmacy | Thinking skills | Critical thinking; problem-solving |
Psychology | Identifying cues and key features, hypothesis testing to form a judgement | Clinical decision-making; diagnosis |
Physiotherapy | Patient and client management; use of the movement system | Critical thinking; decision-making; professional reasoning[4] |
Occupational Therapy | Patient and client management; use of the occupational profile (Araujo) | Critical thinking; decision-making; professional reasoning[4]; therapeutic reasoning; theoretical reasoning |
Prosthetist and Orthotist | Integration of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) into decision-making[6] | |
Speech and Language Therapy | Diagnosis; intervention; swallow assessment, classification for speech disorders[16] | Practice decision making |
Because the area of emphasis and terminology differ between rehabilitation professions, organising clinical reasoning according to purpose or goal can help to guide the selection of the clinical reasoning process.[7]
Clinical Reasoning According to Purpose[edit | edit source]
Clinical reasoning strategies can differ depending on the specific theme/purpose/activity of the rehabilitation professional, as well as the behaviours observed in rehabilitation professionals. These themes can include[17]:
- conducting an assessment and classifying, making a diagnosis
- developing a rehabilitation plan, which may include establishing a prognosis, identifying the need for referral, resource allocation
- implementing rehabilitation interventions (management, intervention, patient education) and evaluating progress toward desired outcomes
- purpose to engage and establish a therapeutic alliance
- resolving a moral dilemma
Purpose | Clinical Reasoning Strategies Employed and Their Definition |
---|---|
Identifying diagnosis or classification |
|
Identifying diagnosis using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Framework |
|
Developing a rehabilitation plan - creating prognosis, goals and progressions |
|
Implementing interventions and evaluating progress |
|
Establishing a therapeutic alliance |
|
Resolving a moral dilemma |
Improving Clinical Reasoning[edit | edit source]
Instructional strategies that may improve clinical reasoning are[31]:
- Self-explanation
- a rehabilitation professional aims to explain to themself their understanding of a clinical problem and its connection to basic biomedical and pathophysiology principles
- Clinical reasoning mapping exercise
- a highly organised map used to represent knowledge structures visually. It provides a framework for the building of early illness scripts
- Deliberate reflection
- reflection during the diagnosis of a clinical case is encouraged, allowing clinicians to compare and contrast alternative diagnoses for the specific case
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Higgs J & Jensen GM. Clinical Reasoning: Challenges of Interpretation and Practice in the 21st Century. In: Higgs J, Jensen GM, Loftus S, Christensen N. Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions. Edinburgh: Elsevier. 2019
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Edwards I, Jones M, Carr J, Braunack-Mayer A, Jensen GM. Clinical reasoning strategies in physical therapy. Physical therapy. 2004 Apr 1;84(4):312-30.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Huhn K, Gilliland SJ, Black LL, Wainwright SF, Christensen N. Clinical reasoning in physical therapy: a concept analysis. Physical therapy. 2019 Apr;99(4):440-56.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 da Silva Araujo A, Anne Kinsella E, Thomas A, Demonari Gomes L, Quevedo Marcolino T. Clinical Reasoning in Occupational Therapy Practice: A Scoping Review of Qualitative and Conceptual Peer-Reviewed Literature. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2022 May 1;76(3):7603205070.
- ↑ Modi JN, Anshu Gupta P and Singh T. Teaching and assessing clinical reasoning skills. Indian Pediatr 2015; 52(9):787–794
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Spaulding SE, Yamane A, McDonald CL, Spaulding SA. A conceptual framework for orthotic and prosthetic education. Prosthetics and Orthotics International. 2019 Aug;43(4):369-81.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Young ME, Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Gordon D, Gruppen LD, Rencic J, Ballard T, Holmboe E, Da Silva A, Ratcliffe T, Schuwirth L. Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review. BMC Medical Education. 2020 Dec;20:1-1.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Higgs J, Jensen GM, Loftus S, Christensen N. Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professions. Edinburgh: Elsevier. 2019
- ↑ Pillay T, Pillay M. Contextualising clinical reasoning within the clinical swallow evaluation: A scoping review and expert consultation. South African Journal of Communication Disorders. 2021;68(1):1-2.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, ISBN 978-0374275631. Reviewed by Freeman Dyson in New York Review of Books. 2011 Dec 22:40-4.
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Peters A, Vanstone M, Monteiro S, Norman G, Sherbino J, Sibbald M. Examining the influence of context and professional culture on clinical reasoning through rhetorical-narrative analysis. Qualitative health research. 2017 May;27(6):866-76.
- ↑ Arocha JF, Patel VL, Patel YC. Hypothesis generation and the coordination of theory and evidence in novice diagnostic reasoning. Medical decision making. 1993 Aug;13(3):198-211.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Ruth-Sahd LA. What lies within: phenomenology and intuitive self-knowledge. Creative nursing. 2014 Feb;20(1):21-9.
- ↑ ACAPT. Clinical Reasoning in Physical Therapy: Fast & Slow Thinking. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LekUj7dlxlw [last accessed 02/03/2024]
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic medicine. 2003 Aug 1;78(8):775-80.
- ↑ Diepeveen S, van Haaften L, Terband H, de Swart B, Maassen B. Clinical reasoning for speech sound disorders: Diagnosis and intervention in speech-language pathologists' daily practice. American journal of speech-language pathology. 2020 Aug 4;29(3):1529-49.
- ↑ Hoffman, L. An Introduction to Clinical Reasoning. Course. Plus. 2024.
- ↑ Yazdani S, Hosseinzadeh M, Hosseini F. Models of clinical reasoning with a focus on general practice: a critical review. Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism. 2017 Oct;5(4):177.
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Schaaf RC. Creating evidence for practice using data-driven decision-making. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2015 Mar 1;69(2):6902360010p1-6.
- ↑ Rothstein JM, Echternach JL, Riddle DL. The Hypothesis-Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians II (HOAC II): a guide for patient management. Physical Therapy. 2003 May 1;83(5):455-70.
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 Mattingly C. The narrative nature of clinical reasoning. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 1991 Nov 1;45(11):998-1005.
- ↑ Mattingly C. In search of the good: Narrative reasoning in clinical practice. Medical anthropology quarterly. 1998 Sep;12(3):273-97.
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 Milota MM, van Thiel GJ, van Delden JJ. Narrative medicine as a medical education tool: a systematic review. Medical teacher. 2019 Jul 3;41(7):802-10.
- ↑ Haines D, Wright J. Thinking in stories: Narrative reasoning of an occupational therapist supporting people with profound intellectual disabilities’ engagement in occupation. Occupational Therapy In Health Care. 2023 Jan 3;37(1):177-96.
- ↑ Cruz EB, Caeiro C, Pereira C. A narrative reasoning course to promote patient-centred practice in a physiotherapy undergraduate programme: a qualitative study of final year students. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice. 2014 May 1;30(4):254-60.
- ↑ Fernbach PM, Darlow A, Sloman SA. Asymmetries in predictive and diagnostic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2011 May;140(2):168.
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Edwards I, Jones M, Higgs J, Trede F, Jensen G. What is collaborative reasoning?. Advances in physiotherapy. 2004 Jun 1;6(2):70-83.
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 Barz DL, Achimaş-Cadariu A. The development of scientific reasoning in medical education: a psychological perspective. Clujul medical. 2016;89(1):32.
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 Edwards I, Braunack-Mayer A, Jones M. Ethical reasoning as a clinical-reasoning strategy in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy. 2005 Dec 1;91(4):229-36.
- ↑ Rhodes R, Alfandre D. A systematic approach to clinical moral reasoning. Clinical Ethics. 2007 Jun 1;2(2):66-70.
- ↑ Torre D, Chamberland M, Mamede S. Implementation of three knowledge-oriented instructional strategies to teach clinical reasoning: Self-explanation, a concept mapping exercise, and deliberate reflection: AMEE Guide No. 150. Medical Teacher. 2023 Jul 3;45(7):676-84.