One‐minute preceptor and SNAPPS for clinical reasoning: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinical reasoning teaching strategies could be important models to teach healthcare trainees. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of clinical reasoning teaching strategies (one‐minute preceptor (OMP) and SNAPPS) for developing clinical reasoning skills, attitudes and satisfaction of medical/healthcare students and post‐graduate trainees as compared to controls. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled studies, with no restriction on language or publication date, were carried out by searching the PubMed, SCOPUS, ERIC, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The risk of bias of the studies selected was determined using Cochrane's risk‐of‐bias tool (RoB 2) and the quality of evidence used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Of the 1066 articles retrieved, 12 were included in the systematic review and 10 in the meta‐analysis. The results showed a growing body of literature on the use of strategies for teaching clinical reasoning that consisted predominantly of low‐quality quasi‐experimental studies. When only randomised controlled trials were included, analyses showed effectiveness among both healthcare students and post‐graduate trainees for a series of outcomes, including total presentation length, duration of discussion, number of basic attributes, number of justified diagnoses in differential diagnoses and number of uncertainties expressed. Lastly, results for SNAPPS were better than for OMP relative to the control group. The strategies for teaching clinical reasoning improved the performance of healthcare students and professionals on this skill, promoting deeper discussion of clinical cases and a higher number of differential diagnoses. Further good‐quality trials are needed to corroborate these findings. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42020175992.