Collaborative Development of Feedback Concept Maps for Virtual Patient-Based Clinical Reasoning Education: Mixed Methods Study.

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Anja Mayer, Inga Hege, Andrzej A Kononowicz, Anja Müller, Małgorzata Sudacka
{"title":"Collaborative Development of Feedback Concept Maps for Virtual Patient-Based Clinical Reasoning Education: Mixed Methods Study.","authors":"Anja Mayer, Inga Hege, Andrzej A Kononowicz, Anja Müller, Małgorzata Sudacka","doi":"10.2196/57331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concept maps are a suitable method for teaching clinical reasoning (CR). For example, in a concept map, findings, tests, differential diagnoses, and treatment options can be documented and connected to each other. When combined with virtual patients, automated feedback can be provided to the students' concept maps. However, as CR is a nonlinear process, feedback concept maps that are created together by several individuals might address this issue and cover perspectives from different health professionals.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this study, we aimed to develop a collaborative process for creating feedback concept maps in virtual patient-based CR education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Health professionals of different specialties, nationalities, and levels of experience in education individually created concept maps and afterward reached a consensus on them in structured workshops. Then, medical students discussed the health professionals' concept maps in focus groups. We performed a qualitative content analysis of the transcribed audio records and field notes and a descriptive comparison of the produced concept maps.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14 health professionals participated in 4 workshops, each with 3-4 participants. In each workshop, they reached a consensus on 1 concept map, after discussing content and presentation, as well as rationales, and next steps. Overall, the structure of the workshops was well-received. The comparison of the produced concept maps showed that they varied widely in their scope and content. Consensus concept maps tended to contain more nodes and connections than individual ones. A total of 9 medical students participated in 2 focus groups of 4 and 5 participants. Their opinions on the concept maps' features varied widely, balancing between the wish for an in-depth explanation and the flexibility of CR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the number of participating health professionals and students was relatively low, we were able to show that consensus workshops are a constructive method to create feedback concept maps that include different perspectives of health professionals with content that is useful to and accepted by students. Further research is needed to determine which features of feedback concept maps are most likely to improve learner outcomes and how to facilitate their construction in collaborative consensus workshops.</p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":"11 ","pages":"e57331"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/57331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Concept maps are a suitable method for teaching clinical reasoning (CR). For example, in a concept map, findings, tests, differential diagnoses, and treatment options can be documented and connected to each other. When combined with virtual patients, automated feedback can be provided to the students' concept maps. However, as CR is a nonlinear process, feedback concept maps that are created together by several individuals might address this issue and cover perspectives from different health professionals.

Objective: In this study, we aimed to develop a collaborative process for creating feedback concept maps in virtual patient-based CR education.

Methods: Health professionals of different specialties, nationalities, and levels of experience in education individually created concept maps and afterward reached a consensus on them in structured workshops. Then, medical students discussed the health professionals' concept maps in focus groups. We performed a qualitative content analysis of the transcribed audio records and field notes and a descriptive comparison of the produced concept maps.

Results: A total of 14 health professionals participated in 4 workshops, each with 3-4 participants. In each workshop, they reached a consensus on 1 concept map, after discussing content and presentation, as well as rationales, and next steps. Overall, the structure of the workshops was well-received. The comparison of the produced concept maps showed that they varied widely in their scope and content. Consensus concept maps tended to contain more nodes and connections than individual ones. A total of 9 medical students participated in 2 focus groups of 4 and 5 participants. Their opinions on the concept maps' features varied widely, balancing between the wish for an in-depth explanation and the flexibility of CR.

Conclusions: Although the number of participating health professionals and students was relatively low, we were able to show that consensus workshops are a constructive method to create feedback concept maps that include different perspectives of health professionals with content that is useful to and accepted by students. Further research is needed to determine which features of feedback concept maps are most likely to improve learner outcomes and how to facilitate their construction in collaborative consensus workshops.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信