Concept mapping to promote clinical reasoning in multimorbidity: a mixed methods study in undergraduate Family Medicine

Concept mapping to promote clinical reasoning in multimorbidity: a mixed methods study in undergraduate Family Medicine | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Concept mapping to promote clinical reasoning in multimorbidity: a mixed methods study in undergraduate Family Medicine Marta Fonseca, Paula Broeiro-Gonçalves, Mariana Barosa, Pedro Marvão, and 6 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4719640/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Introduction : Clinical reasoning significantly impacts physicians' performance and patient care quality. Research into learning transfer within clinical reasoning education, especially in managing multimorbidity in Family Medicine, is crucial. This study evaluates the impact of concept maps (CMs) on promoting clinical reasoning skills among undergraduate students, compared to traditional teaching methods (TM). Methods A mixed methods approach was used in a controlled, non-randomized study with fifth-year Family Medicine undergraduates allocated to sessions using either CMs or TM. Quantitative data included a feedback questionnaire and evaluation of an individual task. Qualitative data comprised responses to an open-ended question and analysis of problem representation in the individual task. Results Among 313 eligible students, 112 participated (CM: 60, TM: 52). Both groups reported high satisfaction with their teaching methods. The CM group valued the holistic view and organization for managing multimorbidity cases, showing higher odds of positive scores on individual tasks (differences not statistically significant). Additionally, the CM group had a more homogeneous code matrix for problem representation in two clinical vignettes. Conclusions While no definitive evidence supports the superiority of CMs over traditional methods, promising trends were noted. The CM group showed improved performance in individual tasks and better organization in managing multimorbidity cases. Further investigation is recommended to explore varying levels of CM usage and modifications to pre-class workloads. Concept map Clinical reasoning Multimorbidity Family Medicine Undergraduate medical education. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Even in the age of artificial intelligence, clinical reasoning remains the cornerstone of effective medical practice (Connor et al., 2020 ). This core skill critically influences physicians' performance and, consequently, the quality of patient care (Torre et al., 2022 ). Paradoxically, despite its centrality to medical practice, a universally agreed-upon definition of clinical reasoning remains elusive, and it is often assumed to be universally understood. The terminology and boundaries between concepts like clinical reasoning, critical thinking, decision-making, problem-solving, clinical judgment, and diagnostic reasoning are often used interchangeably (Brentnall et al., 2022 ). For the purposes of this manuscript, we define clinical reasoning as a comprehensive concept that includes reasoning skills , reasoning processes , and outcomes of reasoning (Daniel et al., 2019 ; Young et al., 2020 ; Durning et al., 2024 ). Clinical reasoning encompasses several components: information gathering, hypothesis generation, problem representation, differential diagnosis, management and treatment, and diagnostic justification (Daniel et al., 2019 ). Acquiring these skills is essential for medical students yet, teaching them effectively remains challenging. Research into learning transfer within clinical reasoning education is necessary (Rencic et al., 2017 ), as current literature on how to evaluate clinical reasoning remains fragmented, despite numerous available methods targeting different measurement components (Daniel et al., 2019 ; Covin et al., 2020 ; Brentnall et al., 2022 ). In Family Medicine, patients with multimorbidity — that is, with multiple chronic conditions — are present in daily clinical practice (NICE guideline 2016; Swanwick et al., 2019). Family physicians often do not feel sufficiently trained or confident in managing such patients. It is not feasible to apply the sum of guidelines for single diseases to patients with multiple conditions, and there are few specific guidelines for patients with multimorbidity. Additionally, managing polypharmacy, which often involves navigating drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, complicates care. There is also a need to integrate the participation of several healthcare professionals (Cairo Notari et al., 2021 ). For these patients, a patient-centered, holistic approach aimed at improving quality of life is essential (Cairo Notari et al., 2021 ; Bogerd et al., 2024 ). Instead of focusing solely on diagnostic precision, clinical reasoning processes should embrace this comprehensive approach. Effective teaching should equip students with these clinical reasoning strategies to enable future physicians to better manage multimorbidity (Cairo Notari et al., 2021 ). The critical components of clinical reasoning in the context of multimorbidity include information gathering, problem representation, and the management and treatment plan. Information gathering is the active process of acquiring patient data and, in the case of multimorbidity, involves synthesizing multiple inputs from various healthcare professionals. Problem representation is the dynamic mental representation of the patient's relevant aspects and, in multimorbidity, should incorporate a patient-centered approach. Finally, the management and treatment plan enables tailoring care to each patient’s unique circumstances and illness experience (Damarell et al., 2020 ). Concept mapping emerges as a powerful pedagogical tool that fosters knowledge integration and critical thinking (Torre et al., 2007 ; Fonseca et al., 2023 ). In the context of clinical reasoning, concept maps (CMs) offer a structured approach to organizing complex information that can be adapted to different contexts, allowing educators to tailor them to specific learning objectives. CMs, as “schematic device for representing a set of concept meanings imbedded in a framework of propositions” (Novak 2003 ), can simplify complexity and foster higher-order thinking skills (metacognition) in medical students. This facilitates the integration of information from various topics and promotes deeper understanding, which is essential in the management of multiple chronic conditions, drugs, and healthcare providers. Despite their potential, the use of CMs to enhance clinical reasoning among medical students remains unclear (Pierce et al., 2020 ; Fonseca et al., 2023 ), particularly its effectiveness in promoting clinical reasoning among patients with multimorbidity. This manuscript is part of an action research project (Tekin & Kotaman 2013 ; Swanwick et al., 2019) focused on a CM-based pedagogical intervention to facilitate clinical reasoning in multimorbidity patients during clinical clerkship (Fonseca et al., 2024 ). We focused on the development and implementation of this educational intervention, as well as its evaluation to guide future planning of this strategy (Ferris & Collins 2015 ). An overview of the larger project is provided in the Additional Supporting Information 1. In this study we aimed to evaluate the impact of CMs in promoting clinical reasoning skills, particularly information gathering, problem representation, and management and treatment, among undergraduate students in the management of multimorbidity, comparing it to traditional teaching methods. Materials and Methods Study design This manuscript reports a mixed methods approach using a convergent design within a controlled, non-randomized study. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in parallel, first analyzed separately and then merged during the interpretation phase to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the results (Creswell 2015 ; Creswell & Clark 2018 ). We sought qualitative data to illuminate and validate the quantitative findings. Figure 1 (Fig. 1 Diagram illustrating the relationship and sequence of the quantitative and qualitative research components (* information gathering, problem representation, and management and treatment plan are components of clinical reasoning described by Daniel et al. 2019 ).) presents a diagram illustrating the relationship and sequence of the quantitative and qualitative research components. We were guided by the checklist for mixed methods research manuscript preparation and review described by Lee et al. ( 2022 ). Setting The curriculum at NOVA Medical School (NMS) is a six-year degree comprising three distinct stages: the first two years are pre-clerkship, followed by three years of clerkship, and concluding with a transitional year into practice. Within this framework, this study aimed to extend the use of CMs into the clerkship stage, specifically within the Family Medicine course for fifth-year students. In the Family Medicine course, students attend one week of seminars and simulation training, three weeks of clinical experience, and a final week of seminars. These seminars, which are held in groups of 40 students, focus on discussing clinical cases related to the management of patients with chronic conditions. The educational sessions described in this study were held in the final session of the seminar series, which is repeated annually with six student cohorts. Participants All students enrolled in the Family Medicine course across eight consecutive students’ cohorts over three semesters, spanning from the fall semester of 2022–2023 through the fall semester of 2023–2024, were eligible to participate. At the beginning of each session, students were informed that data collected would be anonymized, used for research purposes, and would not affect their final assessment. Written informed consent was obtained from each student. Educational sessions A brief description of how educational sessions were developed during the larger action research project is provided in the Additional Supporting Information 1. The educational sessions were planned as a pre-class assignment followed by a two-hour face-to-face session for classes of approximately 40 students. Each session focused on a clinical vignette based on a real patient with multimorbidity. Three clinical vignettes with equivalent health problems were created and aligned with the course syllabus to avoid contamination between classes (the vignettes can be found in the Additional Supporting Information 2). For each clinical vignette, two versions of the educational session were developed: one used concept maps (CM group), another used traditional teaching methods (TM group). Due to logistical constraints and to the small number of randomization units, we chose alternation over randomization to allocate students’ cohorts. Simple randomization was unlikely to ensure a balanced distribution of baseline characteristics. Alternation, however, guaranteed that each vignette was used at least once across the two groups (the sequence is shown in the Additional Supporting Information 2). This method not only reduced administrative burden but also enabled immediate implementation following an addendum of ethical approval. The plan of the educational sessions, including the differences between the groups, is shown in Fig. 2 (Fig. 2 Plan of the educational sessions.). Eighteen days before the face-to-face session, on average, students received individual emails requesting them to complete the pre-class assignment. This task involved summarizing a specific section of the clinical vignette, focusing on only one disease. The email provided instructions for completing and submitting the pre-class assignment. The CM group was requested to create a small CM, while the TM group was asked to write a short text document. The CM group also received a video tutorial with instructions on CM construction. The face-to-face session had the same structure in both groups. Each session began with a presentation of the complete clinical vignette, followed by a brief discussion in small groups. Subsequently, a comprehensive whole-group discussion was facilitated by the tutors. In the CM group, the tutor constructed a CM on the whiteboard that incorporated the students' comments and contributions. In contrast, the TM group engaged in a discussion, with key points recorded topically on the whiteboard. All students were then instructed to complete an individual task: write a management and treatment plan for the patient on a sheet of paper. Finally, after a brief final whole group discussion, students were asked to complete an individual feedback questionnaire. The tutors were part of the research team. Data collection and analysis Quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently and were extracted from: baseline characteristics of the students were collected from a brief demographic questionnaire completed by the students and from the NMS academic division, which provided the students' pre-intervention academic mean scores (on a scale of 0 to 20). an anonymous, individual feedback questionnaire, which students completed at the end of the face-to-face session. It consisted of four closed-ended questions using a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5) and one open-ended question. We pre-tested the questionnaire with a group of five second-year medical students. These students had experience constructing CMs during their pre-clerkship period and were ineligible for study inclusion. No changes were suggested based on the respondents' feedback during pre-testing. the individual task performed in the face-to-face sessions. Three members of the research team (MF, MB, PB), trained to evaluate the individual tasks, independently and blindly assessed the individual tasks after all data collection was complete. They focused on three components of clinical reasoning: information gathering, problem representation, and management and treatment. The evaluation of these components was conducted using a scale developed by the research team for this purpose (Table 1 ), based on existing instruments (Park et al., 2013 ; Smith et al., 2016 ; Boateng et al., 2018 ; McBee et al., 2018 ; Cairo Notari et al., 2021 ; Gordon et al., 2022 ) but adapted to our specific context. Since the scale was new, not validated, and not very discriminative (score of 1 to 3), the research team decided to conduct a parallel qualitative assessment, which was performed by two members (MF, JP). The plans were transcribed and coded deductively according to the problems represented in each of them (item II). This item was selected because it was more objective and suitable for an unconventional and innovative evaluation. Table 1 Scale for quantitative assessment of the individual task (individual management and treatment plan written by each student). Item Score I Information gathering The process of acquiring the data needed to generate or refine hypotheses. The selection of information is driven by knowledge representations of disease. 1 Unsatisfactory 2 Satisfactory 3 Good II Problem representation The dynamic mental representation of all the relevant aspects of the case (including the patient’s clinical findings and biopsychosocial dimensions). 1 Unsatisfactory 2 Satisfactory 3 Good III Management and treatment The actions that follow the clinical reasoning process, including prognostication, management, treatment, prevention strategies, and palliation of symptoms and justification for such actions. 1 Unsatisfactory 2 Satisfactory 3 Good Table 2 Baseline characteristics of the students of the traditional method group and the concept mapping group. Concept mapping group Traditional method group P value Students Eligible Participants (%) 156 60 (38.5) 157 52 (33.1%) 0.386 a Gender Male (%) Female (%) 23 (38.3) 37 (61.7) 12 (23.1) 40 (76.9) 0.082 a Age Mean (SD) Range 22.63 (2.17) 21–34 24.14 (3.64) 21–41 < 0.001 b Students with a previous degree (%) 3 (5.0) 10 (19.2) 0.035 c Participants pre-intervention mean score [0–20] Mean (SD) 16.35 (1.01) 15.83 (1.04) 0.126 d Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation. a Chi-Squared test. b Mann-Whitney test. c Fisher’s exact test. d Student’s t-test. Table 3 Results of the individual feedback questionnaire. Concept mapping group Traditional method group P value a Five-point Likert closed-ended questions n = 59 n = 50 Q1: The pre-class assignment facilitates knowledge integration. Mean score (SD) 4.46 (0.65) 4.08 (0.88) 0.020 Q2: The whole group discussion facilitates knowledge integration. Mean score (SD) 4.51 (0.57) 4.50 (0.71) 0.743 Q3: The methodology facilitates clinical information integration in multimorbidity. Mean score (SD) 4.63 (0.58) 4.58 (0.61) 0.505 Q4: The methodology promotes clinical reasoning in multimorbidity. Mean score (SD) 4.71 (0.49) 4.70 (0.46) 0.566 Students’ feedback from the open-ended question n = 28 n = 21 Valuable learning experience - The session was educational and enriching. - It was a very good way to approach multimorbidity, both for us as students and for future doctors. - Very useful session. Structured and organized session - It was an enlightening session, and it is what happens in clinical practice. - This approach helped me to consolidate my knowledge more. - Effective methodology - CMs facilitate clinical reasoning, more than a physical map, it is the thinking tool that this methodology gives us. - CMs allow for a holistic view. - CMs help to organize multimorbidity. - A complex clinical case helps to approach what multimorbidity really is. Not effective methodology - It would work better in team-based learning methodology. - In practice, constructing the CM can be time-consuming. - It can become graphically confusing. - It would be better to do the treatment plan as a group task. - It was necessary to better define the objectives of each task. - The request for the pre-class assignment leads to lower session attendance. - The construction of a CM would improve the process of writing the individual plan. Abbreviations: CM, concept map; SD, standard deviation. a Mann-Whitney test. Table 4 Assessment of the individual task. Concept mapping group n = 60 Traditional method group n = 52 Unadjusted analysis P value Adjusted analysis a Main analysis Ordinal variable I: Information gathering II: Problem representation III: Management/treatment Mean (SD) 2.05 (0.44) 2.23 (0.52) 2.09 (0.48) Mean (SD) 1.98 (0.48) 2.33 (0.55) 2.10 (0.55) (Mann Whitney) 0.301 0.378 0.896 - Sensitivity Analysis I Dichotomous variable I: Information gathering II: Problem representation III: Management/treatment Satisfactory/Good 68.3% 73.3% 66.7% Satisfactory/Good 63.5% 67.3% 63.5% (Pearson’s Chi-Squared) 0.587 0.485 0.723 Odds ratio (95% CI) 1.76 (95% CI 0.75, 4.22) 1.53 (95% CI 0.65, 3.69) 1.48 (95% CI 0.64, 3.48) Sensitivity Analysis II Composite variable Satisfactory/Good on all items 53.3% Satisfactory/Good on all items 46.2% (Pearson’s Chi-Squared) 0.449 Odds ratio 1.78 (95% CI 0.80, 4.09) Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation. a Logistic regression model results adjusting for age and gender. Quantitative and qualitative data were initially analyzed separately. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. The main analysis involved the Mann-Whitney test, appropriate for the ordinal outcome variables in our individual feedback questionnaire data and individual task assessments. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted by converting ordinal variables to dichotomous outcomes (Satisfactory/Good plan vs. Unsatisfactory plan) and by creating a composite variable (Satisfactory/Good plan on all items vs. any item rated Unsatisfactory). Logistic regression models were applied to these dichotomous outcomes, both unadjusted and adjusted for age and gender. Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney tests were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 29.0.0.0), whereas logistic regression analyses were conducted using R (R Core Team, 2024; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Regarding qualitative data, we conducted an inductive thematic analysis using the results of the open-ended question from the individual feedback questionnaire. Data were compiled, and then coding was applied by MF. This process involved reading the transcripts, highlighting all text relevant to the research questions, categorizing the marked texts, and creating new codes. Each transcript was coded at least twice. Codes were assigned and organized into themes. Qualitative analysis of the problem representation item of individual tasks was performed using a deductive approach. A list of problems previously identified in each clinical vignette was used to ensure that participants' responses appropriately addressed the problem representation item. The coded data were represented in a tabular format using a code matrix browser, allowing visual comparison between groups for each clinical vignette. Qualitative data were analyzed using MAXQDA Plus 2022 (Release 22.8.0, 2022 VERBI GmbH Berlin). The quantitative and qualitative information were then merged in a second phase of analysis and interpretation of the results through narrative with a weaving approach (Fetters et al., 2013 ). The qualitative data enabled a deeper understanding of the students' perceptions and illustrated the problem representation of individual task (Fig. 1 ). Ethical approval The study protocol was approved by the NOVA Medical School Ethics Committee on January 19, 2022 (No.214/ 2021/ CEFCM). An addendum to the project was subsequently approved on October 4, 2022 (No.214/ ADENDA/ 2021/ CEFCM). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Results Participants Among the 313 eligible students, 112 (35.8%) participated in the sessions. Participants had a slightly higher pre-intervention mean score than non-participants (16.00 ± 1.03 vs 15.69 ± 0.96, P = 0.004). The CM group included 60 students, 37 (61.7%) females, with a mean age of 22.63 ± 2.17 years. The TM group included 52 students, 40 (76.9%) females, with a mean age of 24.14 ± 3.64 years. The two groups had similar pre-intervention academic mean scores (the baseline characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 2). Students' perceptions In the individual feedback questionnaire, 109 students (CM: n = 59, TM: n = 50) expressed overall satisfaction with both the concept mapping and the traditional sessions on closed-ended questions. A higher proportion of students in the CM group found the pre-class assignment to be highly beneficial for integrating knowledge ( P = 0.020). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding perceptions of the whole group discussion, facilitation of information integration in multimorbidity, or promotion of clinical reasoning. A total of 49 students provided comments on the open-ended question (CM group: n = 28, TM group: n = 21). Comments from both groups highlighted the valuable learning experience and the positive and negative aspects of both methodologies. In the CM group, the students specifically mentioned that “CMs facilitate clinical reasoning”, “CMs allow for a holistic view”, and “CMs help to organize information in multimorbidity cases”. Interestingly, the TM group suggested adopting CMs for individual task. The results of the individual feedback questionnaire are presented side-by-side in Table 3. Students’ performance The agreement between the raters was fair for all items (38.4% for information gathering, 34.8% for problem representation, and 32.2% for management and treatment). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for any of the individual items or the composite variable combining all three items (Table 4). In the sensitivity analyses, the CM group showed a trend toward higher odds of achieving satisfactory or good scores although these were not statistically significant. This pattern was observed across all three individual items and in the composite variable (Table 4). Qualitative analysis used a code matrix to facilitate a comprehensive visual comparison of the frequency distributions of patient problems across both groups. The CM group appeared to have a more homogeneous matrix for problem representation in clinical vignettes 1 and 3. A graphical representation of this code matrix is provided in the Additional Supporting Information 3. Discussion In this study, we found no definitive evidence supporting the superiority of CMs over traditional teaching methods in promoting clinical reasoning skills among undergraduate students in the management of multimorbidity. This observation was applied to both students' perceptions (Kirkpatrick level 1) and performance (Kirkpatrick level 2b) (Boet et al., 2012). However, encouraging trends emerged. Regarding perceptions, students valued the pre-class assignment in the form of CMs as a tool to facilitate knowledge integration. Students also considered face-to-face CM session to be an effective approach to multimorbidity and perceived CMs as facilitators of clinical reasoning, enabling a comprehensive and organized view of multimorbidity. Although there was no statistically significant difference between groups in the individual task assessment, the CM group consistently had higher odds of receiving positive scores compared to the TM group. This trend may be reflected by the greater robustness of the problem representation code matrix in the CM group, at least for two of the three clinical vignettes. Regarding the coherence of the quantitative and qualitative findings (Fetters et al. 2013), the qualitative data played a confirmatory role for the individual task and confirmed and expanded upon the quantitative findings from the individual feedback questionnaire. Several factors may explain the lack of significant differences in students’ perceptions of teaching methods. Historically, high satisfaction scores at our institution may lead to a ceiling effect that limits detectable differences. Although the students were aware of the research context, they were unaware of the experimental method, potentially elevating their satisfaction across both groups. Influences on student ratings include student characteristics and satisfaction with exam scores and evaluation processes (Schiekirka and Raupach et al. 2015). Despite typically higher ratings from women and high achievers, no significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups. Furthermore, satisfaction was not influenced by exam outcomes, as data was collected before finals from a self-selected third of eligible students using positively phrased items, likely increasing ratings. Regarding student’s performance, medical students' tendency to excel regardless of teaching method may obscure methodological effects. The intervention involved tutors constructing CMs on a whiteboard, similar to the methods described by Richard et al. (2013) and Langer et al. (2021), which is less engaging than an active student-led CM construction that fosters deeper cognitive processing (Kumar et al. 2011; Brondfield et al. 2021). This passive approach could have limited the intervention's effectiveness. Additionally, the challenge of reliably measuring clinical reasoning (Rencic et al. 2017; Daniel et al. 2019; Durning et al. 2024) and the potential unreliability of our assessment tools might not detect true differences. Agreement among raters assessing performance was only fair. The qualitative analysis comparing CM and TM across the three clinical vignettes did not reveal a clear pattern in the problem representation component of clinical reasoning, probably due to the limited number of students per vignette. Our study had both strengths and limitations. We assessed students’ perceptions and performance, employing a control group with similar student characteristics and pre-intervention mean scores across both groups to enhance validity. The integration of quantitative and qualitative data proved beneficial, providing deeper insights into the quantitative results through qualitative evaluation. However, the low attendance rate may limit the generalizability of our findings. This study was not a trial with allocation concealment or blinding, but measures were taken to prevent contamination between groups and attribution bias despite the non-randomized design. Additionally, there was only fair inter-rater agreement on the assessment of students’ performance, which limited the potential to detect differences in clinical reasoning components. While the research team's prior experience with CMs was acknowledged through reflexivity, it could have influenced interpretations. While our results do not conclusively demonstrate the efficacy of CMs in supporting clinical reasoning, they are encouraging enough to warrant further research. A key priority is the development of more robust instruments for clinical reasoning assessment. Regarding the educational intervention, we recommend enhancing the active engagement of students with CMs as they recognize the benefits of using these tools to organize complex information and integrate knowledge. This finding aligns with the idea that CMs promote the management of complex clinical information, as described by Wu et al. (2016) and Wang et al. (2018). However, this must be balanced with the students' perception of the process as time-consuming. In addition, promoting longitudinal evaluation by tracking student participants across subsequent semesters would be valuable for assessing clinical reasoning. Considering the low student participation rate—only one-third of those eligible—we should assess whether decreasing the workload in the pre-class assignments improves student participation. Conclusion No definitive evidence was found to support the superiority of CMs over traditional teaching methods in promoting clinical reasoning skills among undergraduate students in the management of multimorbidity. However, promising trends were noted, with the CM group showing improved performance on individual tasks. CMs also appeared beneficial in preparing students for educational sessions, promoting a holistic view, and organizing information in multimorbidity. There is a need for better instruments to assess clinical reasoning components. Future research should explore varying levels of active CM use in class and adjust the pre-class workload for students. Declarations Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the students who participated in this study, Manuel Gonçalves Pereira, PhD, MD, and Ana Rita Goes, PhD, for their help in planning the study methodology, and Paula Fernandes for her administrative support during the educational sessions. References Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Frontiers in Public Health , 6 , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149 . Boet, S., Sharma, S., Goldman, J., & Reeves, S. (2012). Review article: Medical education research: An overview of methods. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia , 59 (2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-011-9635-y . Bogerd, M. J. L., Exmann, C. J. C., Slottje, P., Bont, J., & Van Hout, H. P. J. (2024). Predicting anticipated benefit from an extended consultation to personalise care in multimorbidity: a development and internal validation study of a prioritisation algorithm in general practice. British Journal of General Practice , 74 (742), e307–e314. https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0114 . Brentnall, J., Thackray, D., & Judd, B. (2022). Evaluating the Clinical Reasoning of Student Health Professionals in Placement and Simulation Settings: A Systematic Review. International Journal of . Environmental Research and Public Health , 19(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020936 . Brondfield, S., Seol, A., Hyland, K., Teherani, A., & Hsu, G. (2021). Integrating Concept Maps into a Medical Student Oncology Curriculum. Journal of Cancer Education , 36 (1), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01601-7 . Cairo Notari, S., Sader, J., Caire Fon, N., Sommer, J. M., Miozzari, P., Janjic, A. C., D., et al. (2021). Understanding GPs’ clinical reasoning processes involved in managing patients suffering from multimorbidity: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research. International Journal of Clinical Practice , 75 (9), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14187 . Connor, D. M., Durning, S. J., & Rencic, J. J. (2020). Clinical reasoning as a core competency. Academic Medicine , 95 (8), 1166–1171. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003027 . Covin, Y., Longo, P., Wick, N., Gavinski, K., & Wagner, J. (2020). Empirical comparison of three assessment instruments of clinical reasoning capability in 230 medical students. BMC Medical Education , 20 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02185-3 . Creswell, J. W. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research . California, SAGE. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods . California, SAGE. Damarell, R. A., Morgan, D. D., & Tieman, J. J. (2020). General practitioner strategies for managing patients with multimorbidity: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research. BMC Family Practice , 21 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01197-8 . Daniel, M., Rencic, J., Durning, S. J., Holmboe, E., Santen, S. A., Lang, V., et al. (2019). Clinical Reasoning Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance. Academic Medicine , 94 (6), 902–912. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002618 . Durning, S. J., Jung, E., Kim, D. H., & Lee, Y. M. (2024). Teaching clinical reasoning: principles from the literature to help improve instruction from the classroom to the bedside. Korean Journal of Medical Education , 36 (2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2024.292 . Ferris, H. A., & Collins, M. E. (2015). Research and Evaluation in Medical Education. International Journal of Higher Education , 4 (3), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n3p104 . Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs - Principles and practices. Health Services Research , 48(6 PART2):2134–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117. Fonseca, M., Marvão, P., Oliveira, B., Heleno, B., Carreiro-Martins, P., Neuparth, N., & Rendas, A. (2023). The effectiveness of concept mapping as a tool for developing critical thinking in undergraduate medical education – a BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 81. Medical Teacher , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2281248. Fonseca, M., Marvão, P., Rosado-Pinto, P., Rendas, A., & Heleno, B. (2024). Promoting clinical reasoning in undergraduate Family Medicine curricula through concept mapping: a qualitative approach. Advances in Health Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-024-10353-z. Gordon, D., Rencic, J. J., Lang, V. J., Thomas, A., Young, M., & Durning, S. J. (2022). Advancing the assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions: Definitional and methodologic recommendations. Perspectives on Medical Education , 11(2):108–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00701-3. Kumar, S., Dee, F., Kumar, R., & Velan, G. (2011). Benefits of testable concept maps for learning about pathogenesis of disease. Teaching and Learning in Medicine , 23(2):137–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2011.561700. Langer, A. L., Block, B. L., Schwartzstein, R. M., & Richards, J. B. (2021). Building upon the foundational science curriculum with physiology-based grand rounds: a multi-institutional program evaluation. Medical Education Online , 26(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1937908. Lee, S. Y. D., Iott, B., Banaszak-Holl, J., Shih, S. F., Raj, M., Johnson, K. E. (2022). Application of Mixed Methods in Health Services Management Research: A Systematic Review. Medical Care Research and Review , 79(3):331–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587211030393. McBee, E., Ratcliffe, T., Schuwirth, L., O’Neill, D., Meyer, H., Madden, S. J. (2018). Context and clinical reasoning: Understanding the medical student perspective. Perspectives on Medical Education , 7(4):256–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0417-x. NICE: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2016). Multimorbidity: clinical assessment and management. Retrieved September 25, 2023, from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng56 . Novak, J. D. (2003). The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and learning. Cell biology education , 2 (2), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.02-11-0059 . Park, Y. S., Lineberry, M., Hyderi, A., Bordage, G., Riddle, J., & Yudkowsky, R. (2013). Validity evidence for a patient note scoring rubric based on the new patient note format of the United States medical licensing examination. Academic Medicine , 88 (10), 1552–1557. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a34b1e . Pierce, C., Corral, J., Aagaard, E., Harnke, B., Irby, D. M., & Stickrath, C. (2020). A BEME realist synthesis review of the effectiveness of teaching strategies used in the clinical setting on the development of clinical skills among health professionals: BEME Guide 61. Medical Teacher , 42 (6), 604–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2019.1708294 . Rencic, J., Trowbridge, R. L., Fagan, M., Szauter, K., & Durning, S. (2017). Clinical Reasoning Education at US Medical Schools: Results from a National Survey of Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors. Journal of General Internal Medicine , 32 (11), 1242–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4159-y . Richards, J., Schwartzstein, R., Irish, J., Almeida, J., & Roberts, D. (2013). Clinical physiology grand rounds. The Clinical Teacher , 10 (2), 88–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00614.x . Schiekirka, S., & Raupach, T. (2015). A systematic review of factors influencing student ratings in undergraduate medical education course evaluations. BMC Medical Education , 15 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0311-8 . Smith, S., Kogan, J. R., Berman, N. B., Dell, M. S., Brock, D. M., & Robins, L. S. (2016). The development and preliminary validation of a rubric to assess medical students’ written summary statements in virtual patient cases. Academic Medicine , 91 (1), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000800 . Swanwick, T. (2019). Understanding Medical Education – Evidence, Theory and Practice . Wiley Blackwell. Tekin, A. K., & Kotaman, H. (2013). The Epistemological Perspectives on Action Research. Journal of Educational and Social Research , 2013, 3, 81–91. Torre, D., Chamberland, M., & Mamede, S. (2022). Implementation of three knowledge-oriented instructional strategies to teach clinical reasoning: self-explanation, a concept mapping exercise, and deliberate reflection: AMEE Guide 150. Medical Teacher , 7 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2105200 . Torre, D. M., Daley, B., Stark-Schweitzer, T., Siddartha, S., Petkova, J., & Ziebert, M. (2007). A qualitative evaluation of medical student learning with concept maps. Medical Teacher , 1 (29), 949–955. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701689506 . Wang, M., Wu, B., Kirschner, P. A., & Spector, M., J (2018). Using cognitive mapping to foster deeper learning with complex problems in a computer-based environment. Computers in Human Behavior , 87 , 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.024 . Wu, B., Wang, M., Grotzer, T. A., Liu, J., & Johnson, J. M. (2016). Visualizing complex processes using a cognitive-mapping tool to support the learning of clinical reasoning. BMC Medical Education , 16 (216), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0734-x . Young, M. E., Thomas, A., Lubarsky, S., Gordon, D., Gruppen, L. D., Rencic, J., et al. (2020). Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: A scoping review. BMC Medical Education , 20 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02012-9 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AppendixS1.pdf AppendixS2.pdf AppendixS3.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4719640","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":328999251,"identity":"c7df32c2-0323-41bd-b924-f2399b3cba96","order_by":0,"name":"Marta Fonseca","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Comprehensive Health Research Centre, NOVA Medical School","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marta","middleName":"","lastName":"Fonseca","suffix":""},{"id":328999252,"identity":"03793355-6a8c-492d-8185-4900013492ec","order_by":1,"name":"Paula Broeiro-Gonçalves","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NOVA Medical School | Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Paula","middleName":"","lastName":"Broeiro-Gonçalves","suffix":""},{"id":328999254,"identity":"fdffbb24-18f6-4d30-b5dd-921910d61018","order_by":2,"name":"Mariana Barosa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NOVA Medical School | Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mariana","middleName":"","lastName":"Barosa","suffix":""},{"id":328999255,"identity":"f5c27ea4-3a5b-4419-bf0c-2d4762cff8fc","order_by":3,"name":"Pedro Marvão","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NOVA Medical School | Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pedro","middleName":"","lastName":"Marvão","suffix":""},{"id":328999256,"identity":"1aa351ae-decf-40bb-b74a-4b93a7885577","order_by":4,"name":"Marta Carreira","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NOVA National School of Public Health","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marta","middleName":"","lastName":"Carreira","suffix":""},{"id":328999257,"identity":"6b30069a-d6f6-43a6-93f4-cf25e9e8421f","order_by":5,"name":"Sofia Azeredo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Comprehensive Health Research Centre, NOVA Medical School","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sofia","middleName":"","lastName":"Azeredo","suffix":""},{"id":328999258,"identity":"e453ceed-3fd5-477c-9de3-2f1a4c0e0992","order_by":6,"name":"Joana Pires","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NOVA National School of Public Health","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Joana","middleName":"","lastName":"Pires","suffix":""},{"id":328999259,"identity":"0a62704e-6e33-419d-a33b-d2e1fcdfc5c1","order_by":7,"name":"António Rendas","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NOVA Medical School | Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"António","middleName":"","lastName":"Rendas","suffix":""},{"id":328999260,"identity":"6da5fe56-ac35-49f5-a0e8-2d91d09c4e8b","order_by":8,"name":"Patrícia Rosado-Pinto","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"NOVA Medical School | Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Patrícia","middleName":"","lastName":"Rosado-Pinto","suffix":""},{"id":328999261,"identity":"535f6f72-c1ea-4fe8-a6f3-5416b49be63e","order_by":9,"name":"Bruno Heleno","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Comprehensive Health Research Centre, NOVA Medical School","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bruno","middleName":"","lastName":"Heleno","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-07-10 17:38:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4719640/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4719640/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":62215593,"identity":"9db36efd-cd0b-44d0-bf4f-4708607e2726","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-11 11:38:43","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":491805,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDiagram illustrating the relationship and sequence of the quantitative and qualitative research components (* information gathering, problem representation, and management and treatment plan are components of clinical reasoning described by Daniel et al. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4719640/v1/e2e97c16c08261605d526a15.jpg"},{"id":62215596,"identity":"bf9be8e9-fd3c-4254-9230-109c0a74e012","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-11 11:38:43","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":806057,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePlan of the educational sessions.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4719640/v1/cf23e0f6fee59f864b3761e1.jpg"},{"id":63878302,"identity":"22a17169-45fb-44f0-aff6-8ddfd190d124","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-03 09:47:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2092407,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4719640/v1/2b508dfb-dd98-4e31-96fa-6e4023881cc5.pdf"},{"id":62215594,"identity":"d9f98d67-3be6-4393-a3aa-5c8f019a50fa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-11 11:38:43","extension":"pdf","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":228318,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixS1.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4719640/v1/4670d502af2ea6a51992b801.pdf"},{"id":62215595,"identity":"e3666e3a-0bde-4f7d-9e16-4ee46bacc6b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-11 11:38:43","extension":"pdf","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":217998,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixS2.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4719640/v1/8dbc0373149c376e733ee8b7.pdf"},{"id":62216733,"identity":"79ddf0bf-2e4e-4402-af14-24dfd92e1d19","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-11 11:46:43","extension":"pdf","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":298066,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixS3.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4719640/v1/9ec6c68ca86819a903fbb2f9.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Concept mapping to promote clinical reasoning in multimorbidity: a mixed methods study in undergraduate Family Medicine","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEven in the age of artificial intelligence, clinical reasoning remains the cornerstone of effective medical practice (Connor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This core skill critically influences physicians' performance and, consequently, the quality of patient care (Torre et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Paradoxically, despite its centrality to medical practice, a universally agreed-upon definition of clinical reasoning remains elusive, and it is often assumed to be universally understood. The terminology and boundaries between concepts like clinical reasoning, critical thinking, decision-making, problem-solving, clinical judgment, and diagnostic reasoning are often used interchangeably (Brentnall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the purposes of this manuscript, we define clinical reasoning as a comprehensive concept that includes reasoning \u003cem\u003eskills\u003c/em\u003e, reasoning \u003cem\u003eprocesses\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eoutcomes\u003c/em\u003e of reasoning (Daniel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Young et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Durning et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Clinical reasoning encompasses several components: information gathering, hypothesis generation, problem representation, differential diagnosis, management and treatment, and diagnostic justification (Daniel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Acquiring these skills is essential for medical students yet, teaching them effectively remains challenging. Research into learning transfer within clinical reasoning education is necessary (Rencic et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), as current literature on how to evaluate clinical reasoning remains fragmented, despite numerous available methods targeting different measurement components (Daniel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Covin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Brentnall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e In Family Medicine, patients with multimorbidity \u0026mdash; that is, with multiple chronic conditions \u0026mdash; are present in daily clinical practice (NICE guideline 2016; Swanwick et al., 2019). Family physicians often do not feel sufficiently trained or confident in managing such patients. It is not feasible to apply the sum of guidelines for single diseases to patients with multiple conditions, and there are few specific guidelines for patients with multimorbidity. Additionally, managing polypharmacy, which often involves navigating drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, complicates care. There is also a need to integrate the participation of several healthcare professionals (Cairo Notari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). For these patients, a patient-centered, holistic approach aimed at improving quality of life is essential (Cairo Notari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Bogerd et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Instead of focusing solely on diagnostic precision, clinical reasoning processes should embrace this comprehensive approach. Effective teaching should equip students with these clinical reasoning strategies to enable future physicians to better manage multimorbidity (Cairo Notari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The critical components of clinical reasoning in the context of multimorbidity include information gathering, problem representation, and the management and treatment plan. \u003cem\u003eInformation gathering\u003c/em\u003e is the active process of acquiring patient data and, in the case of multimorbidity, involves synthesizing multiple inputs from various healthcare professionals. \u003cem\u003eProblem representation\u003c/em\u003e is the dynamic mental representation of the patient's relevant aspects and, in multimorbidity, should incorporate a patient-centered approach. Finally, the \u003cem\u003emanagement and treatment plan\u003c/em\u003e enables tailoring care to each patient\u0026rsquo;s unique circumstances and illness experience (Damarell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcept mapping emerges as a powerful pedagogical tool that fosters knowledge integration and critical thinking (Torre et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Fonseca et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of clinical reasoning, concept maps (CMs) offer a structured approach to organizing complex information that can be adapted to different contexts, allowing educators to tailor them to specific learning objectives. CMs, as \u0026ldquo;schematic device for representing a set of concept meanings imbedded in a framework of propositions\u0026rdquo; (Novak \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), can simplify complexity and foster higher-order thinking skills (metacognition) in medical students. This facilitates the integration of information from various topics and promotes deeper understanding, which is essential in the management of multiple chronic conditions, drugs, and healthcare providers. Despite their potential, the use of CMs to enhance clinical reasoning among medical students remains unclear (Pierce et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Fonseca et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), particularly its effectiveness in promoting clinical reasoning among patients with multimorbidity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis manuscript is part of an action research project (Tekin \u0026amp; Kotaman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Swanwick et al., 2019) focused on a CM-based pedagogical intervention to facilitate clinical reasoning in multimorbidity patients during clinical clerkship (Fonseca et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). We focused on the development and implementation of this educational intervention, as well as its evaluation to guide future planning of this strategy (Ferris \u0026amp; Collins \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). An overview of the larger project is provided in the Additional Supporting Information 1. In this study we aimed to evaluate the impact of CMs in promoting clinical reasoning skills, particularly information gathering, problem representation, and management and treatment, among undergraduate students in the management of multimorbidity, comparing it to traditional teaching methods.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis manuscript reports a mixed methods approach using a convergent design within a controlled, non-randomized study. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in parallel, first analyzed separately and then merged during the interpretation phase to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the results (Creswell \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Creswell \u0026amp; Clark \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). We sought qualitative data to illuminate and validate the quantitative findings. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e Diagram illustrating the relationship and sequence of the quantitative and qualitative research components (* information gathering, problem representation, and management and treatment plan are components of clinical reasoning described by Daniel et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).) presents a diagram illustrating the relationship and sequence of the quantitative and qualitative research components. We were guided by the checklist for mixed methods research manuscript preparation and review described by Lee et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSetting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe curriculum at NOVA Medical School (NMS) is a six-year degree comprising three distinct stages: the first two years are pre-clerkship, followed by three years of clerkship, and concluding with a transitional year into practice. Within this framework, this study aimed to extend the use of CMs into the clerkship stage, specifically within the Family Medicine course for fifth-year students. In the Family Medicine course, students attend one week of seminars and simulation training, three weeks of clinical experience, and a final week of seminars. These seminars, which are held in groups of 40 students, focus on discussing clinical cases related to the management of patients with chronic conditions. The educational sessions described in this study were held in the final session of the seminar series, which is repeated annually with six student cohorts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll students enrolled in the Family Medicine course across eight consecutive students\u0026rsquo; cohorts over three semesters, spanning from the fall semester of 2022\u0026ndash;2023 through the fall semester of 2023\u0026ndash;2024, were eligible to participate. At the beginning of each session, students were informed that data collected would be anonymized, used for research purposes, and would not affect their final assessment. Written informed consent was obtained from each student.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEducational sessions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA brief description of how educational sessions were developed during the larger action research project is provided in the Additional Supporting Information 1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe educational sessions were planned as a pre-class assignment followed by a two-hour face-to-face session for classes of approximately 40 students. Each session focused on a clinical vignette based on a real patient with multimorbidity. Three clinical vignettes with equivalent health problems were created and aligned with the course syllabus to avoid contamination between classes (the vignettes can be found in the Additional Supporting Information 2). For each clinical vignette, two versions of the educational session were developed: one used concept maps (CM group), another used traditional teaching methods (TM group). Due to logistical constraints and to the small number of randomization units, we chose alternation over randomization to allocate students\u0026rsquo; cohorts. Simple randomization was unlikely to ensure a balanced distribution of baseline characteristics. Alternation, however, guaranteed that each vignette was used at least once across the two groups (the sequence is shown in the Additional Supporting Information 2). This method not only reduced administrative burden but also enabled immediate implementation following an addendum of ethical approval.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe plan of the educational sessions, including the differences between the groups, is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e Plan of the educational sessions.). Eighteen days before the face-to-face session, on average, students received individual emails requesting them to complete the pre-class assignment. This task involved summarizing a specific section of the clinical vignette, focusing on only one disease. The email provided instructions for completing and submitting the pre-class assignment. The CM group was requested to create a small CM, while the TM group was asked to write a short text document. The CM group also received a video tutorial with instructions on CM construction. The face-to-face session had the same structure in both groups. Each session began with a presentation of the complete clinical vignette, followed by a brief discussion in small groups. Subsequently, a comprehensive whole-group discussion was facilitated by the tutors. In the CM group, the tutor constructed a CM on the whiteboard that incorporated the students' comments and contributions. In contrast, the TM group engaged in a discussion, with key points recorded topically on the whiteboard. All students were then instructed to complete an individual task: write a management and treatment plan for the patient on a sheet of paper. Finally, after a brief final whole group discussion, students were asked to complete an individual feedback questionnaire. The tutors were part of the research team.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData collection and analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently and were extracted from:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e baseline characteristics of the students were collected from a brief demographic questionnaire completed by the students and from the NMS academic division, which provided the students' pre-intervention academic mean scores (on a scale of 0 to 20).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003ean anonymous, individual feedback questionnaire, which students completed at the end of the face-to-face session. It consisted of four closed-ended questions using a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 to strongly agree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5) and one open-ended question. We pre-tested the questionnaire with a group of five second-year medical students. These students had experience constructing CMs during their pre-clerkship period and were ineligible for study inclusion. No changes were suggested based on the respondents' feedback during pre-testing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003ethe individual task performed in the face-to-face sessions. Three members of the research team (MF, MB, PB), trained to evaluate the individual tasks, independently and blindly assessed the individual tasks after all data collection was complete. They focused on three components of clinical reasoning: information gathering, problem representation, and management and treatment. The evaluation of these components was conducted using a scale developed by the research team for this purpose (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), based on existing instruments (Park et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Boateng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; McBee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Cairo Notari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Gordon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) but adapted to our specific context. Since the scale was new, not validated, and not very discriminative (score of 1 to 3), the research team decided to conduct a parallel qualitative assessment, which was performed by two members (MF, JP). The plans were transcribed and coded deductively according to the problems represented in each of them (item II). This item was selected because it was more objective and suitable for an unconventional and innovative evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScale for quantitative assessment of the individual task (individual management and treatment plan written by each student).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScore\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eI\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInformation gathering\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe process of acquiring the data needed to generate or refine hypotheses. The selection of information is driven by knowledge representations of disease.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnsatisfactory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfactory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGood\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eII\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProblem representation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dynamic mental representation of all the relevant aspects of the case (including the patient\u0026rsquo;s clinical findings and biopsychosocial dimensions).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnsatisfactory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfactory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGood\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIII\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eManagement and treatment\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe actions that follow the clinical reasoning process, including prognostication, management, treatment, prevention strategies, and palliation of symptoms and justification for such actions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnsatisfactory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfactory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGood\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaseline characteristics of the students of the traditional method group and the concept mapping group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcept mapping group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional method group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEligible\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e156\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e60 (38.5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e157\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e52 (33.1%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.386 \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23 (38.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e37 (61.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12 (23.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e40 (76.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.082 \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.63 (2.17)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.14 (3.64)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStudents with a previous degree (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (5.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10 (19.2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.035 \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants pre-intervention mean score [0\u0026ndash;20]\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.35 (1.01)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.83 (1.04)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.126 \u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eAbbreviations: SD, standard deviation.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e Chi-Squared test. \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e Mann-Whitney test. \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e Fisher\u0026rsquo;s exact test. \u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults of the individual feedback questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcept mapping group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional method group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e value \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFive-point Likert closed-ended questions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;59\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;50\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ1: The pre-class assignment facilitates knowledge integration.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean score (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.46 (0.65)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.08 (0.88)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ2: The whole group discussion facilitates knowledge integration.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean score (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.51 (0.57)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.50 (0.71)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.743\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ3: The methodology facilitates clinical information integration in multimorbidity.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean score (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.63 (0.58)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.58 (0.61)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.505\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ4: The methodology promotes clinical reasoning in multimorbidity.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean score (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.71 (0.49)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.70 (0.46)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.566\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; feedback from the open-ended question\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eValuable learning experience\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- The session was educational and enriching.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- It was a very good way to approach multimorbidity, both for us as students and for future doctors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- Very useful session.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStructured and organized session\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- It was an enlightening session, and it is what happens in clinical practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- This approach helped me to consolidate my knowledge more.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEffective methodology\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- CMs facilitate clinical reasoning, more than a physical map, it is the thinking tool that this methodology gives us.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- CMs allow for a holistic view.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- CMs help to organize multimorbidity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- A complex clinical case helps to approach what multimorbidity really is.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNot effective methodology\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- It would work better in team-based learning methodology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- In practice, constructing the CM can be time-consuming.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- It can become graphically confusing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- It would be better to do the treatment plan as a group task.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- It was necessary to better define the objectives of each task.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- The request for the pre-class assignment leads to lower session attendance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e- The construction of a CM would improve the process of writing the individual plan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eAbbreviations: CM, concept map; SD, standard deviation.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e Mann-Whitney test.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssessment of the individual task.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcept mapping group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;60\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditional method group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;52\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnadjusted analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjusted analysis \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMain analysis\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdinal variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eI: Information gathering\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eII: Problem representation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIII: Management/treatment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.05 (0.44)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.23 (0.52)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.09 (0.48)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.98 (0.48)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.33 (0.55)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.10 (0.55)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Mann Whitney)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.301\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.378\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.896\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSensitivity Analysis I\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDichotomous variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eI: Information gathering\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eII: Problem representation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIII: Management/treatment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfactory/Good\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e68.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e73.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e66.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfactory/Good\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e67.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Pearson\u0026rsquo;s Chi-Squared)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.587\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.485\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.723\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOdds ratio (95% CI)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(95% CI 0.75, 4.22)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(95% CI 0.65, 3.69)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(95% CI 0.64, 3.48)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSensitivity Analysis II\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComposite variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfactory/Good on all items\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfactory/Good on all items\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Pearson\u0026rsquo;s Chi-Squared)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.449\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOdds ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(95% CI 0.80, 4.09)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003eAbbreviations: SD, standard deviation.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e Logistic regression model results adjusting for age and gender.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative and qualitative data were initially analyzed separately.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. The main analysis involved the Mann-Whitney test, appropriate for the ordinal outcome variables in our individual feedback questionnaire data and individual task assessments. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted by converting ordinal variables to dichotomous outcomes (Satisfactory/Good plan vs. Unsatisfactory plan) and by creating a composite variable (Satisfactory/Good plan on all items vs. any item rated Unsatisfactory). Logistic regression models were applied to these dichotomous outcomes, both unadjusted and adjusted for age and gender. Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney tests were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 29.0.0.0), whereas logistic regression analyses were conducted using R (R Core Team, 2024; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding qualitative data, we conducted an inductive thematic analysis using the results of the open-ended question from the individual feedback questionnaire. Data were compiled, and then coding was applied by MF. This process involved reading the transcripts, highlighting all text relevant to the research questions, categorizing the marked texts, and creating new codes. Each transcript was coded at least twice. Codes were assigned and organized into themes. Qualitative analysis of the problem representation item of individual tasks was performed using a deductive approach. A list of problems previously identified in each clinical vignette was used to ensure that participants' responses appropriately addressed the problem representation item. The coded data were represented in a tabular format using a code matrix browser, allowing visual comparison between groups for each clinical vignette. Qualitative data were analyzed using MAXQDA Plus 2022 (Release 22.8.0, 2022 VERBI GmbH Berlin).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quantitative and qualitative information were then merged in a second phase of analysis and interpretation of the results through narrative with a weaving approach (Fetters et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The qualitative data enabled a deeper understanding of the students' perceptions and illustrated the problem representation of individual task (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study protocol was approved by the NOVA Medical School Ethics Committee on January 19, 2022 (No.214/ 2021/ CEFCM). An addendum to the project was subsequently approved on October 4, 2022 (No.214/ ADENDA/ 2021/ CEFCM). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the 313 eligible students, 112 (35.8%) participated in the sessions. Participants had a slightly higher pre-intervention mean score than non-participants (16.00 \u0026plusmn; 1.03 vs 15.69 \u0026plusmn; 0.96, \u003cem\u003eP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.004).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe CM group included 60 students, 37 (61.7%) females, with a mean age of 22.63 \u0026plusmn; 2.17 years. The TM group included 52 students, 40 (76.9%) females, with a mean age of 24.14 \u0026plusmn; 3.64 years. The two groups had similar pre-intervention academic mean scores (the baseline characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eStudents\u0026apos; perceptions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the individual feedback questionnaire, 109 students (CM: n = 59, TM: n = 50) expressed overall satisfaction with both the concept mapping and the traditional sessions on closed-ended questions. A higher proportion of students in the CM group found the pre-class assignment to be highly beneficial for integrating knowledge (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.020). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding perceptions of the whole group discussion, facilitation of information integration in multimorbidity, or promotion of clinical reasoning. A total of 49 students provided comments on the open-ended question (CM group: n = 28, TM group: n = 21). Comments from both groups highlighted the valuable learning experience and the positive and negative aspects of both methodologies. In the CM group, the students specifically mentioned that \u0026ldquo;CMs facilitate clinical reasoning\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;CMs allow for a holistic view\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;CMs help to organize information in multimorbidity cases\u0026rdquo;. Interestingly, the TM group suggested adopting CMs for individual task. The results of the individual feedback questionnaire are presented side-by-side in Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eStudents\u0026rsquo; performance\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe agreement between the raters was fair for all items (38.4% for information gathering, 34.8% for problem representation, and 32.2% for management and treatment). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for any of the individual items or the composite variable combining all three items (Table 4). In the sensitivity analyses, the CM group showed a trend toward higher odds of achieving satisfactory or good scores although these were not statistically significant. This pattern was observed across all three individual items and in the composite variable (Table 4).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQualitative analysis used a code matrix to facilitate a comprehensive visual comparison of the frequency distributions of patient problems across both groups. The CM group appeared to have a more homogeneous matrix for problem representation in clinical vignettes 1 and 3. A graphical representation of this code matrix is provided in the Additional Supporting Information 3.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we found no definitive evidence supporting the superiority of CMs over traditional teaching methods in promoting clinical reasoning skills among undergraduate students in the management of multimorbidity. This observation was applied to both students\u0026apos; perceptions (Kirkpatrick level 1)\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eand performance (Kirkpatrick level 2b) (Boet et al., 2012). However, encouraging trends emerged. Regarding perceptions, students valued the pre-class assignment in the form of CMs as a tool to facilitate knowledge integration. Students also considered face-to-face CM session to be an effective approach to multimorbidity and perceived CMs as facilitators of clinical reasoning, enabling a comprehensive and organized view of multimorbidity. Although there was no statistically significant difference between groups in the individual task assessment, the CM group consistently had higher odds of receiving positive scores compared to the TM group. This trend may be reflected by the greater robustness of the problem representation code matrix in the CM group, at least for two of the three clinical vignettes. Regarding the coherence of the quantitative and qualitative findings (Fetters et al. 2013), the qualitative data played a confirmatory role for the individual task and confirmed and expanded upon the quantitative findings from the individual feedback questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral factors may explain the lack of significant differences in students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of teaching methods. Historically, high satisfaction scores at our institution may lead to a ceiling effect that limits detectable differences. Although the students were aware of the research context, they were unaware of the experimental method, potentially elevating their satisfaction across both groups. Influences on student ratings include student characteristics and satisfaction with exam scores and evaluation processes (Schiekirka and Raupach et al. 2015). Despite typically higher ratings from women and high achievers, no significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups. Furthermore, satisfaction was not influenced by exam outcomes, as data was collected before finals from a self-selected third of eligible students using positively phrased items, likely increasing ratings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding student\u0026rsquo;s performance, medical students\u0026apos; tendency to excel regardless of teaching method may obscure methodological effects. The intervention involved tutors constructing CMs on a whiteboard, similar to the methods described by Richard et al. (2013) and Langer et al. (2021), which is less engaging than an active student-led CM construction that fosters deeper cognitive processing (Kumar et al. 2011; Brondfield et al. 2021). This passive approach could have limited the intervention\u0026apos;s effectiveness. Additionally, the challenge of reliably measuring clinical reasoning (Rencic et al. 2017;\u0026nbsp;Daniel et al. 2019;\u0026nbsp;Durning et al. 2024)\u0026nbsp;and the potential unreliability of our assessment tools might not detect true differences. Agreement among raters assessing performance was only fair. The qualitative analysis comparing CM and TM across the three clinical vignettes did not reveal a clear pattern in the problem representation component of clinical reasoning, probably due to the limited number of students per vignette.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur study had both strengths and limitations. We assessed students\u0026rsquo; perceptions and performance, employing a control group with similar student characteristics and pre-intervention mean scores across both groups to enhance validity. The integration of quantitative and qualitative data proved beneficial, providing deeper insights into the quantitative results through qualitative evaluation. However, the low attendance rate may limit the generalizability of our findings. This study was not a trial with allocation concealment or blinding, but measures were taken to prevent contamination between groups and attribution bias despite the non-randomized design. Additionally, there was only fair inter-rater agreement on the assessment of students\u0026rsquo; performance, which limited the potential to detect differences in clinical reasoning components. While the research team\u0026apos;s prior experience with CMs was acknowledged through reflexivity, it could have influenced interpretations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile our results do not conclusively demonstrate the efficacy of CMs in supporting clinical reasoning, they are encouraging enough to warrant further research. A key priority is the development of more robust instruments for clinical reasoning assessment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the educational intervention, we recommend enhancing the active engagement of students with CMs as they recognize the benefits of using these tools to organize complex information and integrate knowledge. This finding aligns with the idea that CMs promote the management of complex clinical information, as described by Wu et al. (2016) and Wang et al. (2018). However, this must be balanced with the students\u0026apos; perception of the process as time-consuming. In addition, promoting longitudinal evaluation by tracking student participants across subsequent semesters would be valuable for assessing clinical reasoning. Considering the low student participation rate\u0026mdash;only one-third of those eligible\u0026mdash;we should assess whether decreasing the workload in the pre-class assignments improves student participation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eNo definitive evidence was found to support the superiority of CMs over traditional teaching methods in promoting clinical reasoning skills among undergraduate students in the management of multimorbidity. However, promising trends were noted, with the CM group showing improved performance on individual tasks. CMs also appeared beneficial in preparing students for educational sessions, promoting a holistic view, and organizing information in multimorbidity. There is a need for better instruments to assess clinical reasoning components. Future research should explore varying levels of active CM use in class and adjust the pre-class workload for students.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank the students who participated in this study, Manuel Gon\u0026ccedil;alves Pereira, PhD, MD, and Ana Rita Goes, PhD, for their help in planning the study methodology, and Paula Fernandes for her administrative support during the educational sessions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Qui\u0026ntilde;onez, H. R., \u0026amp; Young, S. L. (2018). Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoet, S., Sharma, S., Goldman, J., \u0026amp; Reeves, S. (2012). Review article: Medical education research: An overview of methods. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Anesthesia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(2), 159\u0026ndash;170. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-011-9635-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12630-011-9635-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBogerd, M. J. L., Exmann, C. J. C., Slottje, P., Bont, J., \u0026amp; Van Hout, H. P. J. (2024). Predicting anticipated benefit from an extended consultation to personalise care in multimorbidity: a development and internal validation study of a prioritisation algorithm in general practice. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of General Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e74\u003c/em\u003e(742), e307\u0026ndash;e314. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0114\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3399/BJGP.2023.0114\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrentnall, J., Thackray, D., \u0026amp; Judd, B. (2022). Evaluating the Clinical Reasoning of Student Health Professionals in Placement and Simulation Settings: A Systematic Review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, 19(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020936\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph19020936\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrondfield, S., Seol, A., Hyland, K., Teherani, A., \u0026amp; Hsu, G. (2021). Integrating Concept Maps into a Medical Student Oncology Curriculum. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cancer Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(1), 85\u0026ndash;91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01601-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13187-019-01601-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCairo Notari, S., Sader, J., Caire Fon, N., Sommer, J. M., Miozzari, P., Janjic, A. C., D., et al. (2021). Understanding GPs\u0026rsquo; clinical reasoning processes involved in managing patients suffering from multimorbidity: A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Clinical Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14187\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/ijcp.14187\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConnor, D. M., Durning, S. J., \u0026amp; Rencic, J. J. (2020). Clinical reasoning as a core competency. \u003cem\u003eAcademic Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e95\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1166\u0026ndash;1171. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003027\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000003027\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCovin, Y., Longo, P., Wick, N., Gavinski, K., \u0026amp; Wagner, J. (2020). Empirical comparison of three assessment instruments of clinical reasoning capability in 230 medical students. \u003cem\u003eBMC Medical Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02185-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12909-020-02185-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell, J. W. (2015). \u003cem\u003eA Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research\u003c/em\u003e. California, SAGE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Clark, V. L. P. (2018). \u003cem\u003eDesigning and conducting mixed methods\u003c/em\u003e. California, SAGE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDamarell, R. A., Morgan, D. D., \u0026amp; Tieman, J. J. (2020). General practitioner strategies for managing patients with multimorbidity: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research. \u003cem\u003eBMC Family Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01197-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12875-020-01197-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDaniel, M., Rencic, J., Durning, S. J., Holmboe, E., Santen, S. A., Lang, V., et al. (2019). Clinical Reasoning Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance. \u003cem\u003eAcademic Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e94\u003c/em\u003e(6), 902\u0026ndash;912. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002618\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000002618\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDurning, S. J., Jung, E., Kim, D. H., \u0026amp; Lee, Y. M. (2024). Teaching clinical reasoning: principles from the literature to help improve instruction from the classroom to the bedside. \u003cem\u003eKorean Journal of Medical Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 145\u0026ndash;155. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2024.292\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3946/kjme.2024.292\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFerris, H. A., \u0026amp; Collins, M. E. (2015). Research and Evaluation in Medical Education. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 104\u0026ndash;111. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n3p104\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n3p104\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., \u0026amp; Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs - Principles and practices. \u003cem\u003eHealth Services Research\u003c/em\u003e, 48(6 PART2):2134\u0026ndash;56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFonseca, M., Marv\u0026atilde;o, P., Oliveira, B., Heleno, B., Carreiro-Martins, P., Neuparth, N., \u0026amp; Rendas, A. (2023). The effectiveness of concept mapping as a tool for developing critical thinking in undergraduate medical education \u0026ndash; a BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 81. \u003cem\u003eMedical Teacher\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2281248.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFonseca, M., Marv\u0026atilde;o, P., Rosado-Pinto, P., Rendas, A., \u0026amp; Heleno, B. (2024). Promoting clinical reasoning in undergraduate Family Medicine curricula through concept mapping: a qualitative approach. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Health Sciences Education.\u003c/em\u003e https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-024-10353-z.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGordon, D., Rencic, J. J., Lang, V. J., Thomas, A., Young, M., \u0026amp; Durning, S. J. (2022). Advancing the assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions: Definitional and methodologic recommendations. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Medical Education\u003c/em\u003e, 11(2):108\u0026ndash;14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00701-3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumar, S., Dee, F., Kumar, R., \u0026amp; Velan, G. (2011). Benefits of testable concept maps for learning about pathogenesis of disease. \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Learning in Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, 23(2):137\u0026ndash;43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2011.561700.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLanger, A. L., Block, B. L., Schwartzstein, R. M., \u0026amp; Richards, J. B. (2021). Building upon the foundational science curriculum with physiology-based grand rounds: a multi-institutional program evaluation. \u003cem\u003eMedical Education Online\u003c/em\u003e, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1937908.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee, S. Y. D., Iott, B., Banaszak-Holl, J., Shih, S. F., Raj, M., Johnson, K. E. (2022). Application of Mixed Methods in Health Services Management Research: A Systematic Review. \u003cem\u003eMedical Care Research and Review\u003c/em\u003e, 79(3):331\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587211030393.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcBee, E., Ratcliffe, T., Schuwirth, L., O\u0026rsquo;Neill, D., Meyer, H., Madden, S. J. (2018). Context and clinical reasoning: Understanding the medical student perspective. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Medical Education\u003c/em\u003e, 7(4):256\u0026ndash;63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0417-x.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNICE: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2016). \u003cem\u003eMultimorbidity: clinical assessment and management.\u003c/em\u003e Retrieved September 25, 2023, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng56\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng56\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNovak, J. D. (2003). The promise of new ideas and new technology for improving teaching and learning. \u003cem\u003eCell biology education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(2), 122\u0026ndash;132. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.02-11-0059\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1187/cbe.02-11-0059\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePark, Y. S., Lineberry, M., Hyderi, A., Bordage, G., Riddle, J., \u0026amp; Yudkowsky, R. (2013). Validity evidence for a patient note scoring rubric based on the new patient note format of the United States medical licensing examination. \u003cem\u003eAcademic Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1552\u0026ndash;1557. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a34b1e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a34b1e\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePierce, C., Corral, J., Aagaard, E., Harnke, B., Irby, D. M., \u0026amp; Stickrath, C. (2020). A BEME realist synthesis review of the effectiveness of teaching strategies used in the clinical setting on the development of clinical skills among health professionals: BEME Guide 61. \u003cem\u003eMedical Teacher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(6), 604\u0026ndash;615. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2019.1708294\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/0142159X.2019.1708294\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRencic, J., Trowbridge, R. L., Fagan, M., Szauter, K., \u0026amp; Durning, S. (2017). Clinical Reasoning Education at US Medical Schools: Results from a National Survey of Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors. \u003cem\u003eJournal of General Internal Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1242\u0026ndash;1246. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4159-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11606-017-4159-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichards, J., Schwartzstein, R., Irish, J., Almeida, J., \u0026amp; Roberts, D. (2013). Clinical physiology grand rounds. \u003cem\u003eThe Clinical Teacher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 88\u0026ndash;93. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00614.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00614.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchiekirka, S., \u0026amp; Raupach, T. (2015). A systematic review of factors influencing student ratings in undergraduate medical education course evaluations. \u003cem\u003eBMC Medical Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0311-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12909-015-0311-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith, S., Kogan, J. R., Berman, N. B., Dell, M. S., Brock, D. M., \u0026amp; Robins, L. S. (2016). The development and preliminary validation of a rubric to assess medical students\u0026rsquo; written summary statements in virtual patient cases. \u003cem\u003eAcademic Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e(1), 94\u0026ndash;100. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000800\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000000800\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSwanwick, T. (2019). \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding Medical Education \u0026ndash; Evidence, Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley Blackwell.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTekin, A. K., \u0026amp; Kotaman, H. (2013). The Epistemological Perspectives on Action Research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational and Social Research\u003c/em\u003e, 2013, 3, 81\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTorre, D., Chamberland, M., \u0026amp; Mamede, S. (2022). Implementation of three knowledge-oriented instructional strategies to teach clinical reasoning: self-explanation, a concept mapping exercise, and deliberate reflection: AMEE Guide 150. \u003cem\u003eMedical Teacher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2105200\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/0142159X.2022.2105200\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTorre, D. M., Daley, B., Stark-Schweitzer, T., Siddartha, S., Petkova, J., \u0026amp; Ziebert, M. (2007). A qualitative evaluation of medical student learning with concept maps. \u003cem\u003eMedical Teacher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(29), 949\u0026ndash;955. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701689506\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01421590701689506\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, M., Wu, B., Kirschner, P. A., \u0026amp; Spector, M., J (2018). Using cognitive mapping to foster deeper learning with complex problems in a computer-based environment. \u003cem\u003eComputers in Human Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e, 450\u0026ndash;458. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu, B., Wang, M., Grotzer, T. A., Liu, J., \u0026amp; Johnson, J. M. (2016). Visualizing complex processes using a cognitive-mapping tool to support the learning of clinical reasoning. \u003cem\u003eBMC Medical Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(216), 1\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0734-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12909-016-0734-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYoung, M. E., Thomas, A., Lubarsky, S., Gordon, D., Gruppen, L. D., Rencic, J., et al. (2020). Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eBMC Medical Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02012-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12909-020-02012-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Concept map, Clinical reasoning, Multimorbidity, Family Medicine, Undergraduate medical education.","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4719640/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4719640/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eIntroduction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e: Clinical reasoning significantly impacts physicians' performance and patient care quality. Research into learning transfer within clinical reasoning education, especially in managing multimorbidity in Family Medicine, is crucial. This study evaluates the impact of concept maps (CMs) on promoting clinical reasoning skills among undergraduate students, compared to traditional teaching methods (TM).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA mixed methods approach was used in a controlled, non-randomized study with fifth-year Family Medicine undergraduates allocated to sessions using either CMs or TM. Quantitative data included a feedback questionnaire and evaluation of an individual task. Qualitative data comprised responses to an open-ended question and analysis of problem representation in the individual task.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong 313 eligible students, 112 participated (CM: 60, TM: 52). Both groups reported high satisfaction with their teaching methods. The CM group valued the holistic view and organization for managing multimorbidity cases, showing higher odds of positive scores on individual tasks (differences not statistically significant). Additionally, the CM group had a more homogeneous code matrix for problem representation in two clinical vignettes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile no definitive evidence supports the superiority of CMs over traditional methods, promising trends were noted. The CM group showed improved performance in individual tasks and better organization in managing multimorbidity cases. Further investigation is recommended to explore varying levels of CM usage and modifications to pre-class workloads.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Concept mapping to promote clinical reasoning in multimorbidity: a mixed methods study in undergraduate Family Medicine","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-08-11 11:38:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4719640/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":1}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"314e3cac-289e-481a-9277-d7869e85ee45","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 11th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-09-13T13:33:43+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-08-11 11:38:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4719640","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4719640","identity":"rs-4719640","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}