Motivation theory and research remain underused by health professions educators. Some educators say it can seem too To address this, we applied health care language to learner motivation theories. Using a familiar metaphor, we examined the indications, mechanism of action, administration, and monitoring of learner motivation interventions. Similar to the treatment monographs in medicine compendia, we summarized each motivation intervention in the form of a monograph. The purpose of this guide is for health professions educators to develop an understanding of when (i.e. indication) and how (i.e. mechanism of action) learner motivation interventions work. With this information, they can then access ready-to-implement strategies (i.e. administration) to increase their learner interest and assess the effects of these interventions (i.e. monitoring).

Therapeutic reasoning is when the purpose, task, or goal for engaging in reasoning is to determine the patient’s management plan. As the field’s understanding of the process of therapeutic reasoning is less well understood, we focused on studies that collected data on the process of therapeutic reasoning. To synthesize previous studies of therapeutic reasoning characteristics, methodological approaches, theoretical underpinnings, and results. We conducted a scoping review with systematic searching for English language articles with no date limits. Databases included MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Embase, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ERIC. Search terms captured therapeutic reasoning in health professions education research. Initial search yielded 5450 articles. The title and abstract screening yielded 180 articles. After full-text review, 87 studies were included in this review. Articles were excluded if they were outside health professions education, did not collect data on the process of therapeutic reasoning, were not empirical studies, or not focused on therapeutic reasoning. We analyzed the included articles according to scoping questions using qualitative content analysis. 87 articles dated from 1987 to 2019 were included. Several study designs were employed including think-aloud protocol, interview and written documentation. More than half of the articles analyzed the data using qualitative coding. Authors often utilized several middle-range theories to explain therapeutic reasoning processes. The hypothetico-deductive model was most frequently mentioned. The included articles rarely built off the results from previous studies. Six key result categories were found: identifying themes, characterizing and testing previous local theory, exploring factors, developing new local theory, testing tools, and testing hypothesis. Despite the cast body of therapeutic reasoning research, individual study results remain isolated from previous studies. Our future recommendations include synthesizing pre-existing models, developing novel methodologies, and investigating other aspects of therapeutic reasoning.

Due to COVID-19, tertiary institutions were forced to deliver knowledge virtually, which proposed challenges for both institutions and students. In this study, we aimed to characterize pharmacy students’ challenges and strategies during COVID-19 curriculum changes, therefore developing a comprehensive understanding of students’ learning, wellbeing, and resilience in the ever-changing situation. Data were collected from student written reflections across four year levels at one school of pharmacy from March–May 2020. In addition, data were collected from written responses of second-year pharmacy students responding to prompted questions. The data were qualitatively analyzed inductively by five coders using NVivo 12. For each piece of data, two coders independently coded the data, calculated the inter-rater agreement, and resolved discrepancies. The most coded challenges were ‘negative emotional response’ and ‘communication barrier during virtual learning’. The most coded strategies were ‘using new technology’ and ‘time management’. This study allows researchers and education institutions to gain an overview of pharmacy students’ experiences during COVID-19, therefore helping universities to provide students with necessary support and techniques on how to self-cope with COVID-19 as well as stressful events in the future.

Future health professionals, including dentists, must critically engage with digital health technologies to enhance patient care. While digital health is increasingly being integrated into the curricula of health professions, its interpretation varies widely depending on the discipline, health care setting, and local factors. This viewpoint proposes a structured set of domains to guide the designing of a digital health curriculum tailored to the unique needs of dentistry in Australia. The paper aims to share a premise for curriculum development that aligns with the current evidence and the national digital health strategy, serving as a foundation for further discussion and implementation in dental programs.

Objective. To characterize the types of cognitive and metacognitive processes demonstrated by third-year pharmacy students during a therapeutic reasoning activity. Methods. A qualitative, descriptive study following a think-aloud protocol was used to analyze the cognitive (analytical) and metacognitive processes observed by third-year pharmacy students as they completed a 25-minute therapeutic reasoning activity. Using a deductive codebook developed from literature about reasoning, two independent coders characterized processes from audio-recorded, transcribed student think-aloud episodes while making therapeutic decisions about simulated clinical cases. Results. A total of 40 think-aloud episodes were transcribed amongst the cohort. Categorization of the think-aloud transcriptions revealed a series of cognitive analytical and metacognitive processes demonstrated by students during the therapeutic decision-making activity. A total of 1,792 codes were categorized as analytical processes, falling into six major themes: 69% gathering information (1,232/1,792), 13% processing information (227/1,792), 7% making assessments (133/1,792), 1% synthesizing information (19/1,792), 7% articulating evidence (117/1,792) and 4% making a recommendation (64/1,792). In comparison to gathering information, a much lower frequency of processing and assessment was observed by students, particularly for those that were unable to resolve the case. Students’ movement between major analytical processes co-occurred commonly with metacognitive processes. Of the 918 codes categorized as metacognitive processes the two major themes were: 28% monitoring for knowledge or emotions (257/918) and 72% controlling the planning of next steps or verification of correct information (661/918). Sequencing the codes and co-occurrences of processes allowed us to propose an integrated cognitive/metacognitive model of therapeutic reasoning for students. Conclusion. This study categorizes the cognitive (analytical) and metacognitive processes engaged during pharmacy students’ therapeutic reasoning process. The findings can inform current instructional practices and further research into educational activities that can strengthen pharmacy student therapeutic reasoning skills.