↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Promoting student case creation to enhance instruction of clinical reasoning skills: a pilot feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Promoting student case creation to enhance instruction of clinical reasoning skills: a pilot feasibility study
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, April 2018
DOI 10.2147/amep.s155481
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hamsika Chandrasekar, Neil Gesundheit, Andrew B Nevins, Peter Pompei, Janine Bruce, Sylvia Bereknyei Merrell

Abstract

It is a common educational practice for medical students to engage in case-based learning (CBL) exercises by working through clinical cases that have been developed by faculty. While such faculty-developed exercises have educational strengths, there are at least two major drawbacks to learning by this method: the number and diversity of cases is often limited; and students decrease their engagement with CBL cases as they grow accustomed to the teaching method. We sought to explore whether student case creation can address both of these limitations. We also compared student case creation to traditional clinical reasoning sessions in regard to tutorial group effectiveness, perceived gains in clinical reasoning, and quality of student-faculty interaction. Ten first-year medical students participated in a feasibility study wherein they worked in small groups to develop their own patient case around a preassigned diagnosis. Faculty provided feedback on case quality afterwards. Students completed pre- and post-self-assessment surveys. Students and faculty also participated in separate focus groups to compare their case creation experience to traditional CBL sessions. Students reported high levels of team engagement and peer learning, as well as increased ownership over case content and understanding of clinical reasoning nuances. However, students also reported decreases in student-faculty interaction and the use of visual aids (P < 0.05). The results of our feasibility study suggest that student-generated cases can be a valuable adjunct to traditional clinical reasoning instruction by increasing content ownership, encouraging student-directed learning, and providing opportunities to explore clinical nuances. However, these gains may reduce student-faculty interaction. Future studies may be able to identify an improved model of faculty participation, the ideal timing for incorporation of this method in a medical curriculum, and a more rigorous assessment of the impact of student case creation on the development of clinical reasoning skills.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Lecturer 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 16 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,841,451
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,722
of 344,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them