RESUMEN

PURPOSE: In health professions education (HPE), the effect of assessments on student motivation for learning and its consequences have been largely neglected. This is problematic because assessments can hamper motivation and psychological well-being. The research questions guiding this review were: How do assessments affect student motivation for learning in HPE? What outcomes does this lead to in which contexts? METHOD: In October 2020, the authors searched PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, ERIC, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection for "assessments" AND "motivation" AND "health professions education/students." Empirical papers or literature reviews investigating the effect of assessments on student motivation for learning in HPE using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods from January 1, 2010, to October 29, 2020, were included. The authors chose the realist synthesis method for data analysis to study the intended and unintended consequences of this complex topic. Assessments were identified as stimulating autonomous or controlled motivation using sensitizing concepts from self-determination theory and data on context-mechanism-outcome were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 15,291 articles were ultimately included. Assessments stimulating controlled motivation seemed to have negative outcomes. An example of an assessment that stimulates controlled motivation is one that focuses on factual knowledge (context), which encourages studying only for the assessment (mechanism) and results in surface learning (outcome). Assessments stimulating autonomous motivation seemed to have positive outcomes. An example of an assessment that stimulates autonomous motivation is one that is fun (context), which through active learning (mechanism) leads to higher effort and better connection with the material (outcome). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that students strategically learned what was expected to appear in assessments at the expense of what was needed in practice. Therefore, health professions educators should rethink their assessment philosophy and practices and introduce assessments that are relevant to professional practice and stimulate genuine interest in the content.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

When physicians and nurses are looking at the same patient, they may not see the same picture. If assuming that the clinical reasoning of both professions is alike and ignoring possible differences, aspects essential for care can be overlooked. Understanding the multifaceted concept of clinical reasoning of both professions may provide insight into the nature and purpose of their practices and benefit patient care, education and research. We aimed to identify, compare and contrast the documented features of clinical reasoning of physicians and nurses through the lens of layered analysis and to conduct a simultaneous concept analysis. The protocol of this systematic integrative review was published doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049862. A comprehensive search was performed in four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Psychinfo, and Web of Science) from 30th March 2020 to 27th May 2020. A total of 69 Empirical and theoretical journal articles about clinical reasoning of practitioners were included: 27 nursing, 37 medical, and five combining both perspectives. Two reviewers screened the identified papers for eligibility and assessed the quality of the methodologically diverse articles. We used an onion model, based on three layers: Philosophy, Principles, and Techniques to extract and organize the data. Commonalities and differences were identified on professional paradigms, theories, intentions, content, antecedents, attributes, outcomes, and contextual factors. The detected philosophical differences were located on a care-cure and subjective-objective continuum. We observed four principle contrasts: a broad or narrow focus, consideration of the patient as such or of the patient and his relatives, hypotheses to explain or to understand, and argumentation based on causality or association. In the technical layer a difference in the professional concepts of diagnosis and the degree of patient involvement in the reasoning process were perceived. Clinical reasoning can be analysed by breaking it down into layers, and the onion model resulted in detailed features. Subsequently insight was obtained in the differences between nursing and medical reasoning. The origin of these differences is in the philosophical layer (professional paradigms, intentions). This review can be used as a first step toward gaining a better understanding and collaboration in patient care, education and research across the nursing and medical professions.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning, a major competency for all health professionals, has been defined and studied 'within' each profession. We do not know if content, process and outcomes are comparable 'between' physician and nursing clinical reasoning. This paper aims to set up a protocol for an integrative review to analyse and synthesise the scientific nursing and medical clinical reasoning literature. It builds on the history of nursing and medical clinical reasoning research and aims to create a higher level of conceptual clarity of clinical reasoning, to increase mutual understanding in collaboration in patient care, education and research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This integrative review follows stepwise the methods described by Whittmore and Knafl: problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis and presentation.The initial systematic and comprehensive search strategy is developed in collaboration with the clinical librarian and is performed in electronic databases, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Web of Science from 30 March 2020 to 27 May 2020. Empirical and theoretical studies are included. This search will be accompanied by ancestry searching and purposeful sampling. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart will summarise the selection process. The quality of eligible studies will be evaluated with a checklist, suitable for diverse study methods.The data analysis is inspired by concept analysis of Walker and Avant and layered analysis of an intervention of Cianciolo and Regehr. We will extract the data of the included studies conforming these layers and features, to capture the multifaceted nature of clinical reasoning in both professions. The data will be presented in a validity matrix to facilitate comparing and contrasting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The outcomes will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications.

Asunto(s)