Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Thinking”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

The impact of artificial intelligence on critical thinking and clinical reasoning in health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Critical thinking and clinical reasoning underpin healthcare professionals' ability to navigate uncertainties and deliver safe and effective care. With artificial intelligence (AI) advancement and growing adoption, AI-based educational tools are increasingly used to support these cognitive competencies' development. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize randomised and controlled clinical trials on AI-based educational tools in health professions education and examine their effects on critical thinking and clinical reasoning among health professions students. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched from January 1, 2014 to July 28, 2025 was reviewed: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment using standardized JBI checklists. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Studies were pooled via random-effects meta-analyses or narrative syntheses. RESULTS: Fourteen randomised controlled trials and seven controlled clinical trials were included (n = 21). Meta-analyses revealed small to medium effect sizes for the surrogate clinical reasoning outcomes of performance-based assessment scores (SMD 0.68; 95% CI [0.38, 0.98], p-value = 0.00; I2 = 38%) and knowledge test scores (SMD 0.39; 95% CI [0.09, 0.69], p-value = 0.01; I2 = 79%). Critical thinking and clinical reasoning skills and dispositions were narratively synthesized, with majority of included studies favouring AI-based interventions but the evidence had low to very low certainty. CONCLUSION: AI-based educational interventions may improve critical thinking and clinical reasoning among health profession students, but the evidence is very uncertain. This review offers preliminary insights but does not allow identification of optimal interventions or discipline-specific recommendations due to small sample sizes and substantial intervention heterogeneity. Further research is required to draw definitive conclusions. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: CRD42025634074.

Humans

Effects of extended problem-based learning interventions on undergraduate nursing education: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Exploring the effects of long-term PBL (problem-based learning) intervention on undergraduate nursing students. METHODS: The article retrieved literature from CINAHL Complete, Academic Search Complete, Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane Library up to January 2025. Studies had to meet all of these criteria: (1) They used a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and quasi-experimental design. (2) The PBL pedagogy intervention lasted 4 weeks or longer. (3) The participants were undergraduate nursing students. (4) They reported primary outcomes. These included critical thinking, problem-solving skills and self-directed learning. Two researchers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed quality independently using blinding. They used Cochrane ROB2 for RCTs and ROBINS-I for quasi-experimental studies to judge bias risk. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. For continuous variables, standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. When I2 > 50%, sensitivity analysis was conducted. The source of heterogeneity was explored by excluding studies one by one. The primary outcomes included standardized critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-directed learning assessment results. RESULTS: A total of 11 randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were retrieved and included for meta-analysis. The experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-directed learning, with differences being statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05). However, high heterogeneity was observed. After sensitivity analysis, the heterogeneity was reduced and the results remained statistically significant, indicating that the findings were not solely dependent on the excluded studies.

Problem-Based Learning