Studies about clinical pain in schizophrenia are rare. Conclusions on pain sensitivity in people with schizophrenia are primarily based on experimental pain studies. This review attempts to assess clinical pain, that is, everyday pain without experimental manipulation, in people with schizophrenia. PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase.com, and Cochrane were searched with terms related to schizophrenia and pain. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Fourteen studies were included. Persons with schizophrenia appear to have a diminished prevalence of pain, as well as a lower intensity of pain when compared to persons with other psychiatric diseases. When compared to healthy controls, both prevalence and intensity of pain appear to be diminished for persons with schizophrenia. However, it was found that this effect only applies to pain with an apparent medical cause, such as headache after lumbar puncture. For less severe situations, prevalence and intensity of pain appears to be comparable between people with schizophrenia and controls. Possible underlying mechanisms are discussed. Knowledge about pain in schizophrenia is important for adequate pain treatment in clinical practice. Perspective This review presents a valuable insight into clinical pain in people with schizophrenia
The relationship between race and biology is complex. In contemporary medical science, race is a social construct that is measured via self-identification of study participants. But even though race has no biological essence, it is often used as variable in medical guidelines (e.g., treatment recommendations specific for Black people with hypertension). Such recommendations are based on clinical trials in which there was a significant correlation between self-identified race and actual, but often unmeasured, health-related factors such as (pharmaco) genetics, diet, sun exposure, etc. Many teachers are insufficiently aware of this complexity. In their classes, they (unintentionally) portray self-reported race as having a biological essence. This may cause students to see people of shared race as biologically or genetically homogeneous, and believe that race-based recommendations are true for all individuals (rather than reflecting the average of a heterogeneous group). This medicalizes race and reinforces already existing healthcare disparities. Moreover, students may fail to learn that the relation between race and health is easily biased by factors such as socioeconomic status, racism, ancestry, and environment and that this limits the generalizability of race-based recommendations. We observed that the clinical case vignettes that we use in our teaching contain many stereotypes and biases, and do not generally reflect the diversity of actual patients. This guide, written by clinical pharmacology and therapeutics teachers, aims to help our colleagues and teachers in other health professions to reflect on and improve our teaching on race-based medical guidelines and to make our clinical case vignettes more inclusive and diverse.
MULTIFILE
Introduction: Given the complexity of teaching clinical reasoning to (future) healthcare professionals, the utilization of serious games has become popular for supporting clinical reasoning education. This scoping review outlines games designed to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education, with a specific emphasis on their alignment with the 8-step clinical reasoning cycle and the reflective practice framework, fundamental for effective learning. Methods: A scoping review using systematic searches across seven databases (PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) was conducted. Game characteristics, technical requirements, and incorporation of clinical reasoning cycle steps were analyzed. Additional game information was obtained from the authors. Results: Nineteen unique games emerged, primarily simulation and escape room genres. Most games incorporated the following clinical reasoning steps: patient consideration (step 1), cue collection (step 2), intervention (step 6), and outcome evaluation (step 7). Processing information (step 3) and understanding the patient’s problem (step 4) were less prevalent, while goal setting (step 5) and reflection (step 8) were least integrated. Conclusion: All serious games reviewed show potential for improving clinical reasoning skills, but thoughtful alignment with learning objectives and contextual factors is vital. While this study aids health professions educators in understanding how games may support teaching of clinical reasoning, further research is needed to optimize their effective use in education. Notably, most games lack explicit incorporation of all clinical reasoning cycle steps, especially reflection, limiting its role in reflective practice. Hence, we recommend prioritizing a systematic clinical reasoning model with explicit reflective steps when using serious games for teaching clinical reasoning.
