When social psychology became less social: Prasad and the history of rumor research

Rumor research, in general, and its delayed incorporation of the work, of rumor researcher Jamuna Prasad, in particular, exemplify how the intellectual climate of American social psychology discouraged the development of social approaches. In the present paper, we explain his conceptualization of how rumors start and spread, and explore findings from subsequent research supporting or negating his propositions. It is our contention that, although Prasad had identified the basic variables involved in rumor generation and transmission correctly, mainstream social psychological research in the 1940s did not incorporate his contributions. Instead, mirroring the Zeitgeist of American social psychology, rumor research was approached from a predominantly individual level of analysis. In the present paper, the authors have tried to resurrect some of the group-level variables from Prasad's treatment of rumor and to suggest that social psychology adopt a more 'social' approach to rumor.

Assessing clinical reasoning: a method to monitor its development in a PBL curriculum

The aim of this study was to develop and trial a method to monitor the evolution of clinical reasoning in a PBL curriculum that is suitable for use in a large medical school. Termed Clinical Reasoning Problems (CRPs), it is based on the notion that clinical reasoning is dependent on the identification and correct interpretation of certain critical clinical features. Each problem consists of a clinical scenario comprising presentation, history and physical examination. Based on this information, subjects are asked to nominate the two most likely diagnoses and to list the clinical features that they considered in formulating their diagnoses, indicating whether these features supported or opposed the nominated diagnoses. Students at different levels of medical training completed a set of 10 CRPs as well as the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory, a self-reporting questionnaire designed to assess reasoning style. Responses were scored against those of a reference group of general practitioners. Results indicate that the CRPs are an easily administered, reliable and valid assessment of clinical reasoning, able to successfully monitor its development throughout medical training. Consequently, they can be employed to assess clinical reasoning skill in individual students and to evaluate the success of undergraduate medical schools in providing effective tuition in clinical reasoning.

Does primary medical practitioner involvement with a specialist team improve patient outcomes? A systematic review.

Patients with chronic or complex medical or psychiatric conditions are treated by many practitioners, including general practitioners (GPs). Formal liaison between primary and specialist is often assumed to offer benefits to patients The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of formal liaison of GPs with specialist service providers on patient health outcomes, by conducting a systematic review of the published literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases using the following search terms family physicians': synonyms of 'patient care planning', 'patient discharge' and 'patient care team'; and synonyms of 'randomised controlled trials'. Seven studies were identified, involving 963 subjects and 899 controls. most health outcomes were unchanged, although some physical and functional health outcomes were improved by formal liaison between GPs and specialist services, particularly among chronic mental illness patients. Some health outcomes worsened during the intervention. Patient retention rates within treatment programmes improved with GP involvement, as did patient satisfaction. Doctor (GP and specialist) behaviour changed, with reports of more rational use of resources and diagnostic tests, improved clinical skills, more frequent use of appropriate treatment strategies, and more frequent clinical behaviours designed to detect disease complications Cost effectiveness could not be determined. In conclusion, formal liaison between GPs and specialist services leaves most physical health outcomes unchanged, but improves functional outcomes in chronically mentally ill patients. It may confer modest long-term health benefits through improvements in patient concordance with treatment programmes and more effective clinical practice.