中西医思维方式偏好:混合方法研究

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
{"title":"中西医思维方式偏好:混合方法研究","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.eujim.2024.102383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine (WM) stem from distinct cultural and regional contexts, with the primary difference in their approaches to clinical reasoning. This study aims to investigate the cognitive preferences of TCM and WM physicians in clinical diagnosis and treatment, providing valuable insights for the advancement of TCM.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We implemented a two-phase mixed methods approach comprising questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The Thinking Style Inventory (TSI) was used to evaluate the thinking styles of physicians through convenience sampling. Additionally, a total of six physicians (three practicing TCM and three WM) were selected by purposive sampling and open-ended responses regarding self-cognition and influencing factors were analyzed using thematic analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 150 surveys and six interviews consistently indicated a preference among both TCM and WM physicians for Legislative, Executive, Hierarchical, Liberal, and External styles. In contrast, TCM physicians exhibited a tendency towards Legislative and Liberal styles, whereas WM physicians leaned towards Executive and Judicial styles. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed four themes: self-understanding, thinking characteristics, influencing factors, and style changes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our study identified that within TCM and WM, a blend of shared characteristics and distinct individuality in thinking styles existed, exhibiting variations in the growth processes of physicians. Both TCM and WM physicians attributed the formation of their thinking styles to factors such as education, internship experience, Chinese social culture and personal disposition. Furthermore, empirical research methods emerged as effective tools for studying clinical reasoning in healthcare contexts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11932,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Integrative Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000532/pdfft?md5=7d0fa68cd1bb7fbdcf71eb547c871c89&pid=1-s2.0-S1876382024000532-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thinking style preferences of Chinese and Western physicians: A mixed-methods study\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eujim.2024.102383\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine (WM) stem from distinct cultural and regional contexts, with the primary difference in their approaches to clinical reasoning. This study aims to investigate the cognitive preferences of TCM and WM physicians in clinical diagnosis and treatment, providing valuable insights for the advancement of TCM.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We implemented a two-phase mixed methods approach comprising questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The Thinking Style Inventory (TSI) was used to evaluate the thinking styles of physicians through convenience sampling. Additionally, a total of six physicians (three practicing TCM and three WM) were selected by purposive sampling and open-ended responses regarding self-cognition and influencing factors were analyzed using thematic analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 150 surveys and six interviews consistently indicated a preference among both TCM and WM physicians for Legislative, Executive, Hierarchical, Liberal, and External styles. In contrast, TCM physicians exhibited a tendency towards Legislative and Liberal styles, whereas WM physicians leaned towards Executive and Judicial styles. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed four themes: self-understanding, thinking characteristics, influencing factors, and style changes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our study identified that within TCM and WM, a blend of shared characteristics and distinct individuality in thinking styles existed, exhibiting variations in the growth processes of physicians. Both TCM and WM physicians attributed the formation of their thinking styles to factors such as education, internship experience, Chinese social culture and personal disposition. Furthermore, empirical research methods emerged as effective tools for studying clinical reasoning in healthcare contexts.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Integrative Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000532/pdfft?md5=7d0fa68cd1bb7fbdcf71eb547c871c89&pid=1-s2.0-S1876382024000532-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Integrative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000532\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Integrative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000532","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言传统中医(TCM)和西医(WM)源于不同的文化和地域背景,其主要区别在于临床推理方法。本研究旨在调查中医和西医在临床诊断和治疗中的认知偏好,为中医的发展提供有价值的见解。通过便利抽样,使用思维风格量表(TSI)评估医生的思维风格。此外,我们还通过目的取样法选取了六名医生(三名中医和三名妇科医生),并采用主题分析法对他们关于自我认知和影响因素的开放式回答进行了分析。结果 150份调查问卷和六次访谈一致表明,中医和妇科医生都偏好立法型、行政型、等级型、自由型和外在型思维风格。相比之下,中医倾向于立法和自由风格,而西医则倾向于行政和司法风格。对访谈的主题分析显示了四个主题:自我理解、思维特点、影响因素和风格变化。结论我们的研究发现,在中医和西医中,思维风格既有共同的特点,也有鲜明的个性,表现出医生成长过程中的差异。中医师和西医师都将其思维风格的形成归因于教育、实习经历、中国社会文化和个人性格等因素。此外,实证研究方法成为研究医疗背景下临床推理的有效工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Thinking style preferences of Chinese and Western physicians: A mixed-methods study

Introduction

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine (WM) stem from distinct cultural and regional contexts, with the primary difference in their approaches to clinical reasoning. This study aims to investigate the cognitive preferences of TCM and WM physicians in clinical diagnosis and treatment, providing valuable insights for the advancement of TCM.

Methods

We implemented a two-phase mixed methods approach comprising questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The Thinking Style Inventory (TSI) was used to evaluate the thinking styles of physicians through convenience sampling. Additionally, a total of six physicians (three practicing TCM and three WM) were selected by purposive sampling and open-ended responses regarding self-cognition and influencing factors were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

A total of 150 surveys and six interviews consistently indicated a preference among both TCM and WM physicians for Legislative, Executive, Hierarchical, Liberal, and External styles. In contrast, TCM physicians exhibited a tendency towards Legislative and Liberal styles, whereas WM physicians leaned towards Executive and Judicial styles. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed four themes: self-understanding, thinking characteristics, influencing factors, and style changes.

Conclusion

Our study identified that within TCM and WM, a blend of shared characteristics and distinct individuality in thinking styles existed, exhibiting variations in the growth processes of physicians. Both TCM and WM physicians attributed the formation of their thinking styles to factors such as education, internship experience, Chinese social culture and personal disposition. Furthermore, empirical research methods emerged as effective tools for studying clinical reasoning in healthcare contexts.

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
European Journal of Integrative Medicine
European Journal of Integrative Medicine INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
102
审稿时长
33 days
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Integrative Medicine (EuJIM) considers manuscripts from a wide range of complementary and integrative health care disciplines, with a particular focus on whole systems approaches, public health, self management and traditional medical systems. The journal strives to connect conventional medicine and evidence based complementary medicine. We encourage submissions reporting research with relevance for integrative clinical practice and interprofessional education. EuJIM aims to be of interest to both conventional and integrative audiences, including healthcare practitioners, researchers, health care organisations, educationalists, and all those who seek objective and critical information on integrative medicine. To achieve this aim EuJIM provides an innovative international and interdisciplinary platform linking researchers and clinicians. The journal focuses primarily on original research articles including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, other clinical studies, qualitative, observational and epidemiological studies. In addition we welcome short reviews, opinion articles and contributions relating to health services and policy, health economics and psychology.
×
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