Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Reasoning like a doctor or like a nurse? An integrative review protocol: An integrative review protocol

  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • University Medical Center Utrecht
  • Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
  • Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Neurosurgical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Biomedical Engineering & Physics AUMC...
  • Medical library, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Department of Psychiatry, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584CG Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584CG Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Translational Neuroscience...
  • ACHIEVE Centre of Applied Research, Faculty of Health, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

14 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere049862
Pages (from-to)e049862
JournalBMJ open
Volume11
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 23 Sept 2021

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 4 - Quality Education
    SDG 4 Quality Education

Keywords

  • education & training (see medical education & training)
  • medical education & training
  • medical history

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Reasoning like a doctor or like a nurse? An integrative review protocol: An integrative review protocol'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this