Cited by 148

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An integrated model of clinical reasoning: dual-process theory of cognition and metacognition

Marcum, James A.·2012·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

Rationale and aim: Clinical reasoning is an important component for providing quality medical care. The aim of the present paper is to develop a model of clinical reasoning that integrates both the non‐analytic and analytic processes of cognition, along with metacognition. Method: The dual‐process theory of cognition (system 1 non‐analytic and system 2 analytic processes) and the metacognition theory are used to develop an integrated model of clinical reasoning. Results: In the proposed model, clinical reasoning begins with system 1 processes in which the clinician assesses a patient's presenting symptoms, as well as other clinical evidence, to arrive at a differential diagnosis. Additional clinical evidence, if necessary, is acquired and analysed utilizing system 2 processes to assess the differential diagnosis, until a clinical decision is made diagnosing the patient's illness and then how best to proceed therapeutically. Importantly, the outcome of these processes feeds back, in terms of metacognition's monitoring function, either to reinforce or to alter cognitive processes, which, in turn, enhances synergistically the clinician's ability to reason quickly and accurately in future consultations. Conclusions: The proposed integrated model has distinct advantages over other models proposed in the literature for explicating clinical reasoning. Moreover, it has important implications for addressing the paradoxical relationship between experience and expertise, as well as for designing a curriculum to teach clinical reasoning skills.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01900.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Benner P., 2008, Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence‐Based Handbook for Nurses, 1
  2. 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00252.x · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s11017-009-9110-8 · DOI
  4. Bowen J. L., 2010, Theory and Practice of Teaching Medicine, 1
  5. Rencic J., 2010, Teaching in the Hospital, 67
  6. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01243.x · DOI
  7. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x · DOI
  8. 10.1023/A:1009978315185 · DOI
  9. 10.1007/s11606-010-1524-5 · DOI
  10. 10.1001/jama.282.9.833 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01771.x · DOI
  12. 10.3402/meo.v16i0.5890 · DOI
  13. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0002 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00330.x · DOI
  15. Kahneman D., 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow
  16. Polanyi M., 1966, The Tacit Dimension
  17. 10.1016/j.neucom.2011.12.001 · DOI
  18. 10.1067/mem.2003.22 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1007/s10459-009-9194-y · DOI
  20. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0008 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00340.x · DOI
  22. 10.1007/s11406-010-9279-0 · DOI
  23. 10.1097/00001888-200508000-00014 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02911.x · DOI
  25. Patel V. L., 2005, Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, 727
  26. 10.1126/science.130.3366.9 · DOI
  27. Barrows H. S., 1980, Problem‐Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education
  28. Kassirer J. P., 2010, Learning Clinical Reasoning
  29. Sox H. C., 2007, Medical Decision Making
  30. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1987.tb00671.x · DOI
  31. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1982.tb01214.x · DOI
  32. 10.1093/jmp/11.2.167 · DOI
  33. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1985.tb01148.x · DOI
  34. McGuire C. H., 1985, Medical problem‐solving: a critique of the literature, Journal of Medical Education, 60, 587
  35. 10.1023/A:1009784330364 · DOI
  36. 10.1056/NEJM198205273062104 · DOI
  37. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02914.x · DOI
  38. 10.1007/s11017-009-9106-4 · DOI
  39. Goldman G. M., 1990, The tacit dimension of clinical judgment, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 63, 47
  40. 10.1007/s11017-006-9005-x · DOI
  41. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01387.x · DOI
  42. 10.1007/BF00998544 · DOI
  43. 10.1186/1747‐5341‐1‐2 · DOI
  44. 10.1007/978-94-009-9399-0_12 · DOI
  45. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03507.x · DOI
  46. 10.1007/s10459-009-9184-0 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.7326/0003-4819-123-10-199511150-00011 · DOI
  48. 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02921.x · DOI
  49. 10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_3 · DOI
  50. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181405a76 · DOI
  51. 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.159 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 148

Metadata

Authors
Marcum, J. A.
Affiliations
Medical Humanities Program Department of Philosophy Baylor University Waco TX USA
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-09-21
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
954-961
ISSN
  • 1356-1294
  • 1365-2753
Cited by
148
References
6
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review