MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199066141 · doi:10.1136/fmch-2020-000798

Multimorbidity and clinical reasoning through the eyes of GPs: a qualitative study

2021· article· en· W3199066141 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Ritz, Julia Sader, Sarah Cairo Notari, Cédric Lanier, Nathalie Caire Fon, Mathieu Nendaz, Marie‐Claude Audétat

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Medicine and Community Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Thematic analysisQualitative researchExploratory researchGlobal Positioning SystemCognitionPsychologyMedicineApplied psychologyComputer sciencePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Despite the high prevalence of patients suffering from multimorbidity, the clinical reasoning processes involved during the longitudinal management are still sparse.This study aimed to investigate what are the different characteristics of the clinical reasoning process clinicians use with patients suffering from multimorbidity, and to what extent this clinical reasoning differs from diagnostic reasoning. DESIGN: was used as a framework to describe the multifaceted processes of the clinical reasoning. SETTING: Semistructured interviews were conducted with nine GPs working in an ambulatory setting in June to September 2018, in Geneva, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were GPs who came from public hospital or private practice. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The results highlighted how some cognitive processes seem to be more specific to the management reasoning.Thus, the main goal is not to reach a diagnosis, but rather to consider several possibilities in order to maintain a balance between the evidence-based care options, patient's priorities and maintaining quality of life. The initial representation of the current problem seems to be more related to the importance of establishing links between the different pre-existing diseases, identifying opportunities for actions and trying to integrate the new elements from the patient's context, rather than identifying the signs and symptoms that can lead to generating new clinical hypotheses. The multiplicity of options to resolve problems is often perceived as difficult by GPs. Furthermore, longitudinal management does not allow them to achieve a final resolution of problems and that requires continuous review and an ongoing prioritisation process. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to a better understanding of the clinical reasoning processes of GPs in the longitudinal management of patients suffering from multimorbidity. Through a practical and accessible model, this qualitative study offers new perspectives for identifying the components of management reasoning. These results open the path to new research projects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.302
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Medicine and Community HealthSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207