Effects of SNAPPS in clinical reasoning teaching: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

被引:1
|
作者
Flores-Cohaila, Javier A. [1 ]
Vizcarra-Jimenez, Sonia F. [2 ]
Bermudez-Pelaez, Milagros F. [3 ]
Vascones-Roman, Fritz Fidel [3 ]
Rivarola-Hidalgo, Marco [4 ]
Taype-Rondan, Alvaro [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cient Sur, Escuela Med, UCSUR Campus Villa 2,Ctra Panamer S 19, Lima 15067, Peru
[2] Univ Privada Tacna, Escuela Med Humana, Fac Ciencias Salud, Tacna, Peru
[3] Cayetano Heredia Pervuvian Univ, Alberto Hurtado Fac Med, Lima, Peru
[4] Univ Privada Tacna, Ctr Estudios & Invest Educ Med & Bioet, Tacna, Peru
[5] Univ San Ignacio Loyola, Unidad Invest Generac & Sintesis Evidencias Salud, Lima, Peru
关键词
SNAPPS; medical education; clinical reasoning; MEDICAL-EDUCATION; FACILITATE;
D O I
10.1515/dx-2023-0149
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction Clinical reasoning is crucial in medical practice, yet its teaching faces challenges due to varied clinical experiences, limited time, and absence from competency frameworks. Despite efforts, effective teaching methodologies remain elusive. Strategies like the One Minute Preceptor (OMP) and SNAPPS are proposed as solutions, particularly in workplace settings. SNAPPS, introduced in 2003, offers a structured approach but lacks comprehensive evidence of its effectiveness. Methodological shortcomings hinder discerning its specific effects. Therefore, a systematic review is proposed to evaluate SNAPPS' impact on clinical reasoning teaching. Content We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNAPPS against other methods. Data selection and extraction were performed in duplicate. Bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated using Cochrane RoB-2 and GRADE approach. Summary We identified five RCTs performed on medical students and residents. Two compared SNAPPS with an active control such as One Minute Preceptor or training with feedback. None reported the effects of SNAPPS in workplace settings (Kirkpatrick Level 3) or patients (Kirkpatrick Level 4). Low to moderate certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS increases the total presentation length by increasing discussion length. Low to moderate certainty of evidence may increase the number of differential diagnoses and the expression of uncertainties. Low certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS may increase the odds of trainees initiating a management plan and seeking clarification. Outlook Evidence from this systematic review suggests that SNAPPS has some advantages in terms of clinical reasoning, self-directed learning outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, it appears more beneficial when used by residents than medical students. However, future research should explore outcomes outside SNAPPS-related outcomes, such as workplace or patient-related outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:220 / 230
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Underrepresentation of women in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Vered Daitch
    Adi Turjeman
    Itamar Poran
    Noam Tau
    Irit Ayalon-Dangur
    Jeries Nashashibi
    Dafna Yahav
    Mical Paul
    Leonard Leibovici
    [J]. Trials, 23
  • [42] Underrepresentation of women in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Daitch, Vered
    Turjeman, Adi
    Poran, Itamar
    Tau, Noam
    Ayalon-Dangur, Irit
    Nashashibi, Jeries
    Yahav, Dafna
    Paul, Mical
    Leibovici, Leonard
    [J]. TRIALS, 2022, 23 (01)
  • [43] Probiotics for dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Kruger, Jenifer F.
    Hillesheim, Elaine
    Pereira, Amanda C. S. N.
    Camargo, Carolina Q.
    Rabito, Estela, I
    [J]. NUTRITION REVIEWS, 2021, 79 (02) : 160 - 170
  • [44] Pharmacopuncture in Korea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Park, Jimin
    Lee, Hyangsook
    Shin, Byung-Cheul
    Lee, Myeong Soo
    Kim, Boryang
    Kim, Jong-In
    [J]. EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE, 2016, 2016
  • [45] Effectiveness of medication review: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Huiskes, Victor Johan Bernard
    Burger, David Marinus
    van den Ende, Cornelia Helena Maria
    van den Bemt, Bartholomeus Johannes Fredericus
    [J]. BMC FAMILY PRACTICE, 2017, 18
  • [46] Garlic for hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Xiong, X. J.
    Wang, P. Q.
    Li, S. J.
    Li, X. K.
    Zhang, Y. Q.
    Wang, J.
    [J]. PHYTOMEDICINE, 2015, 22 (03) : 352 - 361
  • [47] The Safety of Yoga: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Cramer, Holger
    Ward, Lesley
    Saper, Robert
    Fishbein, Daniel
    Dobos, Gustav
    Lauche, Romy
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2015, 182 (04) : 281 - 293
  • [48] Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on Wenxin keli
    Wang, Xiaoyi
    Wang, Ying
    Feng, Xiaoyuan
    Lu, Ying
    Zhang, Yu
    Wang, Wenwen
    Zhu, Wentao
    [J]. DRUG DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND THERAPY, 2016, 10 : 3725 - 3736
  • [49] Pharmacopuncture for asthma: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Bang, Miran
    Chang, Seju
    Kim, Jang Hyun
    Min, Sang Yeon
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE, 2017, 11 : 6 - 17
  • [50] Effects of melatonin supplementation on diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
    Delpino, Felipe Mendes
    Figueiredo, Lilian Munhoz
    Nunes, Bruno Pereira
    [J]. CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2021, 40 (07) : 4595 - 4605