The development of clinical reasoning throughout the training and career of psychiatrists in Singapore.

Objectives: The current study sought to explain how different professional experiences led Singaporean psychiatrists to alter their clinical reasoning processes as their careers evolved from psychiatry residents to senior consultant psychiatrists. Methods: The current qualitative study interviewed 26 clinicians at various stages of their psychiatric career, spanning residents to senior psychiatrists.  The authors used a constructivist grounded theory approach to structure the collection and analysis of data. Analyses produced a dense theoretical explanation rooted in the experiences of participants. Results: Several differences emerged between the way psychiatry residents and senior psychiatrists explained their reasoning process and the experiences on which they based their preference. Residents preferred using deductive logic-driven frameworks that were diagnosis-centric, because of the pressures they experienced during their training and assessments. Senior psychiatrists emphasized a more holistic and problem-centric approach. Participants attributed the changes that occurred over time to practical experiences, such as their greater clinical responsibility and independence, and individual experiences, such as growing sensitivity to the clinical reasoning process or their growing propensity for professional reflectiveness. These changes manifest as an increase in repertoire and flexibility in deployment of different clinical reasoning strategies. Conclusions: It is important for trainees to be aware of the deductive and inductive modes of clinical reasoning during supervision and to be comfortable with shifting clinical focus from diagnoses to specific individual problems. Training programs should provide and plan adequate longitudinal clinical exposure to develop clinical reasoning abilities in a way that allows consequences of decisions to be explored. Continued faculty development to ease the diversification of clinical reasoning skills should be encouraged, as should reflectivity in the learners during clinical supervision.

Prevalence of depression and its potential contributing factors in patients with enterostomy: A meta-analytical review.

Objective: In patients with intestinal pathologies, the placement of a stoma bag affects multiple aspects of their perceived quality of life. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the prevalence of depression among patients with enterostomy and to determine the underlying factors that could explain the potential heterogeneity of this prevalence. Methods: Relevant published studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science until May 2022. The random-effects model was used to determine the pooled prevalence of depression among patients with enterostomy using cross-sectional studies from various countries. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to identify factors contributing to heterogeneity. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for nonrandomized studies. Results: The pooled prevalence of depressive symptoms among patients with enterostomy, as calculated using the random-effects model, was 41.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.4-59.7%, Q-value = 145.794, df = 8, p < 0.001, tau∧2 = 1.124, I∧2 = 94.513). The meta-regression found that mean age and gender were not significant moderators for the observed heterogeneity in prevalence. Subgroup analysis according to the indications for enterostomy formation showed that the prevalence of depression was highest in patients with colorectal cancer, at 34.4% (95% CI: 27.2-42.4%). Subgroup analysis by region showed that patients in Africa had the highest prevalence of depression, at 88.2% (95% CI: 76.1-94.6%), compared to other regions. Subgroup analysis by stoma indication was not significant. Conclusion: This meta-analysis reports that the pooled prevalence of depression among patients with enterostomy is 41.6%. Indications for enterostomy formation, as well as geographical region, were identified as potential sources of heterogeneity. These findings highlight the need for appropriate psychosocial support and interventions at different stages of enterostomy placement.