RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning is crucial in medical practice, yet its teaching faces challenges due to varied clinical experiences, limited time, and absence from competency frameworks. Despite efforts, effective teaching methodologies remain elusive. Strategies like the One Minute Preceptor (OMP) and SNAPPS are proposed as solutions, particularly in workplace settings. SNAPPS, introduced in 2003, offers a structured approach but lacks comprehensive evidence of its effectiveness. Methodological shortcomings hinder discerning its specific effects. Therefore, a systematic review is proposed to evaluate SNAPPS' impact on clinical reasoning teaching. CONTENT: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNAPPS against other methods. Data selection and extraction were performed in duplicate. Bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated using Cochrane RoB-2 and GRADE approach. SUMMARY: We identified five RCTs performed on medical students and residents. Two compared SNAPPS with an active control such as One Minute Preceptor or training with feedback. None reported the effects of SNAPPS in workplace settings (Kirkpatrick Level 3) or patients (Kirkpatrick Level 4). Low to moderate certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS increases the total presentation length by increasing discussion length. Low to moderate certainty of evidence may increase the number of differential diagnoses and the expression of uncertainties. Low certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS may increase the odds of trainees initiating a management plan and seeking clarification. OUTLOOK: Evidence from this systematic review suggests that SNAPPS has some advantages in terms of clinical reasoning, self-directed learning outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, it appears more beneficial when used by residents than medical students. However, future research should explore outcomes outside SNAPPS-related outcomes, such as workplace or patient-related outcomes.
RESUMO
Background: The unmet neurosurgical need has remained patent in developing countries, including Peru. However, continuous efforts to overcome the lack of affordable care have been achieved, being neurosurgical missions one of the main strategies. We chronicle the humanitarian labor of organizations from high-income countries during their visit to Peru, the contributions to local trainees' education, and the treatment of underserved patients. Furthermore, we discuss the embedded challenges from these missions and the future perspective on long-term partnerships and sustainability. Methods: This is a narrative review. We searched the literature in PubMed and Google Scholar about neurosurgical missions conducted in Peru. Results: Since 1962, twelve organizations from high-income countries have delivered humanitarian help in Peru by training local neurosurgeons, treating low-income patients, and providing surgical instrumentation. Out of the three main regions of Peru, cities on the coast and highlands have hosted most of these missions, with no reported outreach in the amazon area. About 75% of the organizations are headquartered in the United States, followed by Canada, Luxembourg, and Spain. In addition, 50% of the organizations have an active partnership. The predominant focus of these missions has been pediatrics, neuro-oncology, and spine surgery. Conclusion: Neurosurgical missions have represented a strategy to close the disparity in education and treatment in Peru. However, additional efforts must be conducted to improve long-term partnership and sustainability, such as adopting standardized indicators for progress tracking, incorporating remote technologies for continuous training and communication, and expanding partnerships in less attended areas.
