The project was carried out by the National HIV Residency Pathway Consortium, or NHRPC, a steering committee of six national HIV leaders formed in February 2021. The group, which included two family medicine and four internal medicine experts representing five institutions and states, brought together decades of experience in HIV clinical care, training, and education. From the outset, the committee defined five goals: to establish a collaboration mechanism for HIV residency pathway leaders nationwide, to share best practices and resources, to help programs establish new pathways, to develop methods for evaluating program efficacy, and to identify solutions for the conspicuous deficit of pathway programs in the regions of the country where HIV is most prevalent.

HIV residency pathways are not a new idea. Since the first such track was established in 2006, more than 25 have appeared in family medicine and internal medicine residencies across the country, and more than 225 residents have graduated from them. Roughly 40 percent of those graduates now provide both primary and HIV care to people with HIV. But the geography of this educational effort has been strikingly mismatched with the epidemiology of the disease. Most existing pathways, and most of their graduates, are concentrated far from the areas of greatest need, particularly the Southern United States, where HIV prevalence is highest. The consortium’s central insight was that expanding the workforce would require deliberately seeding new pathways in those underserved, high-prevalence regions.

To test that idea, the steering committee implemented a one-year pilot project in 2023, funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration. From July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024, the New England AIDS Education and Training Center, one of eight regional centers operating under Part F of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, worked with the committee to recruit new or developing family medicine and internal medicine HIV pathways from high-prevalence areas. Interested programs submitted proposals that included a work plan, a budget justification, and a sustainability and evaluation plan. The committee judged applications on feasibility, on need as measured by local HIV prevalence, and on the experience and commitment of pathway directors and faculty in HIV care and education.

Six programs were selected, and each received 68,000 dollars in seed funding to start or expand its pathway. The money mattered more than its modest size might suggest. Across the six sites, 77.6 percent of the funds supported personnel costs, including protected time for faculty leadership, curriculum development, resident mentorship, and administrative coordination. The remainder went toward travel and conference attendance, recruitment and program development, and resident educational resources. All six awardees reported that securing this funding was essential to their pathway’s success, and four of the six said ongoing funding would be necessary to sustain their programs beyond the pilot year. The other two indicated that, while continued support would be beneficial, they could maintain some version of the pathway without it.

Beyond money, the project invested heavily in structured mentorship and peer support. Pathway faculty received monthly support through meetings that alternated among small-group sessions with steering committee mentors, larger sessions with the committee and all funded site directors, and consortium-wide gatherings. Over the project year, the steering committee held 21 mentoring meetings with individual pathway directors, averaging 3.5 per site, plus quarterly meetings with the six funded directors. The full consortium, which by then included 31 programs, met quarterly as well, drawing representation from 22 programs and an average of 13.6 participants per meeting. Topics ranged from clinical requirements and resident recruitment to evaluation and curricular resources. The organizers drew on the de Carvalho-Filho framework for building a community of practice for faculty development, and used Microsoft Teams for meetings, file sharing, and communication across the network.

A key deliverable of the pilot was the HIV Residency Pathway Toolkit, developed by the steering committee during the project year and refined through iterative feedback from HRSA and pathway directors. Launched in May 2024 on the website of the National AETC Support Center, the toolkit offers step-by-step guidance on nearly every operational question a new pathway faces: assessing local need and resources, creating a budget, designing a training model and didactics, establishing minimum clinic requirements, supporting faculty, and planning for sustainability. It also includes a comprehensive assessment schema built on previously published HIV-specific entrustable professional activities, mapped to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s milestones, along with faculty development in competency-based assessment. Pathway directors highlighted that seeing different options for structuring pathways, building schedules, and creating budgets was particularly helpful in organizing their own programs into coherent wholes.

The results of the pilot year were encouraging. Across the six sites, 24 residents matriculated into HIV pathways, six in family medicine and 18 in internal medicine. Recruitment was left entirely to the participating programs, and at the time of the report no participants had yet graduated. Evaluation combined process metrics with end-of-year survey responses from faculty and residents, with narrative comments coded thematically. Residents consistently reported developing a passion for integrated HIV and primary care, recognizing the impact of Ryan White funding and multidisciplinary care teams, and appreciating the complexities of caring for people with HIV. They reported greater confidence and strengthened clinical skills, and faculty independently observed the same growth. Many residents said the pathway influenced or reinforced their HIV-related career goals, with some describing newfound interest in outpatient medicine, in caring for people with HIV and other underserved populations, or in working at Ryan White-funded clinics.

Curriculum resources also proved their value. Every site used the publicly accessible, HRSA-funded National HIV Curriculum to track resident progress, and directors singled out its mini-lectures and podcasts as especially useful. Use of the HIV-specific entrustable professional activities was encouraged but not mandated; one pathway adopted 11 of the 12 during the pilot year, and four others planned to begin using them the following year. Directors also identified areas for improvement, including deeper collaboration with residency program leadership, more intentional modification of resident schedules to balance volume, breadth, and depth of patient contact, and earlier planning for conference attendance, since schedules are built months in advance. All pathways expressed the hope of continuing after the pilot year, pending institutional support.

The authors are candid about the limitations of their work. The short funding window and limited budget precluded a standardized pathway selection process, and the deliberate design of locally adaptable pathways may limit generalizability on a national scale. The findings reflect only the first year of implementation, without data on program growth, changes in resident confidence, patient satisfaction, or the long-term outcomes that matter most, such as workforce retention and career selection. Several programs reported that a single year of funding was disruptive, and the team’s experience suggests that at least two to three years are needed to launch sustainable pathways. Still, the pilot achieved its primary goal: catalyzing six new HIV training pathways in high-prevalence regions where few or none previously existed, and training 24 new residents in the process. The authors argue that novel, multi-year funding mechanisms should be developed to support and evaluate such pathways, and that the model could be adapted for other disciplines. As people with HIV continue to live longer and the clinician shortage deepens, this quietly pragmatic experiment offers a template for growing the HIV workforce exactly where it is needed most.

Subject of Research: Expansion of HIV residency training pathways to address the HIV clinician workforce shortage in high-prevalence regions of the United States

Article Title: Expanding the HIV Workforce Through Residency HIV Pathways

Article References: Budak, J. Z., Bositis, C., Day, P. G., Carson-Sasso, V., Hebert, S., Simpson, E. H., Chastain, C., Spach, D., Barakat, L., & Bolduc, P. (2026). Expanding the HIV Workforce Through Residency HIV Pathways. Journal of General Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10809-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s11606-026-10809-5

Keywords: HIV, residency training pathways, clinician workforce, graduate medical education, family medicine, internal medicine, Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, mentorship, community of practice, health workforce shortage, primary care, HRSA

The research, led by Zeliha Yelda Özer of Çukurova University Faculty of Medicine in Adana, together with colleagues from medical education, public health, and biostatistics, took a deliberately interpretive approach. Rather than measuring outcomes with surveys or checklists, the team conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with twenty family medicine resident physicians at a university hospital in Adana, a city close enough to the epicenters to feel the full force of the disaster yet far enough to serve as a major receiving center for the wounded. Interviews began on 19 January 2024 and continued until 7 January 2025, a timeline that allowed residents to reflect on their experiences after the most acute phase of the crisis had passed.

Methodologically, the study is grounded in hermeneutic phenomenology, a tradition that asks not simply what happened to people, but how they made sense of what happened. Each interview was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, then examined using thematic analysis within that interpretive orientation. The authors were careful about rigor in ways that matter for qualitative work: they practiced investigator reflexivity, meaning they explicitly examined how their own backgrounds and assumptions might shape interpretation; they kept field notes; they discussed emerging interpretations as a team; they returned findings to participants for validation; and they used bilingual checking to ensure that nuances survived the translation between Turkish and English. Reporting followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research, the international standard for transparency in interview-based studies. Ethical approval came from the Çukurova University Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee, and all participants gave written informed consent.

From this material, the researchers developed two main themes. The first they describe as existential disruption and contested professional duty. The second traces a movement from clinical unpreparedness toward systemic reappraisal. Together, these themes capture a psychological arc that is rarely acknowledged in disaster medicine literature: the collapse of the assumed boundary between the person who helps and the person who needs help. Residents described how threats to their own safety and to the safety of their families destabilized the very foundations of what they believed professional duty required. The implicit contract of medicine, that the clinician stands steady while the patient suffers, broke down when the clinician was also shaking, grieving, and uncertain whether loved ones had survived.

This dual identity, survivor and provider at once, is the conceptual heart of the study. Disaster planning in most health systems treats staff as resources to be deployed, not as members of the affected population. The residents’ accounts suggest that this framing is not only incomplete but potentially harmful. A physician who cannot reach their family, who does not know whether their apartment building will stand, and who is simultaneously asked to triage earthquake victims is navigating an ethical and emotional terrain for which no lecture hall prepares them. The study found that these competing demands did not merely cause stress; they forced residents to question what duty even means when the duty-holder is himself a casualty of the same event.

The second theme documents a more constructive transformation. Confronted with unfamiliar clinical assignments and disrupted organizational systems, residents began to redefine what competent disaster practice actually looks like. Instead of picturing competence as a body of theoretical knowledge memorized in training, they came to see it as something embodied, distributed across teams, and dependent on ethical support from the institution. In other words, the disaster taught them that resilience in medicine is less about individual heroism and more about collective function: knowing how to work with strangers, how to improvise within broken systems, and how to sustain each other morally when standard protocols no longer apply.

For readers outside medicine, the technical significance of this reframing is worth unpacking. Traditional disaster preparedness curricula emphasize knowledge transfer: mass casualty triage categories, incident command structures, infection control in field conditions. These remain necessary, but the Adana findings indicate they are not sufficient. Competence under catastrophe, as the residents experienced it, involves tacit, embodied skills, the ability to keep working while exhausted and frightened, to communicate across professional hierarchies that have themselves been disrupted, and to make ethically fraught decisions, such as allocating scarce resources, without clear guidance. Those skills are relational and contextual, which means they cannot be assessed by written examination alone.

The study’s conclusions translate directly into policy recommendations. The authors argue that disaster preparedness for resident physicians should combine practical training with psychological support and, crucially, with workforce policies that explicitly recognize clinicians may also be disaster survivors. That recognition has concrete implications: hospitals might plan for staff who need to locate family members before reporting for duty, provide childcare and shelter for personnel, rotate staff to prevent burnout, and embed mental health professionals within disaster response teams rather than offering counseling only after the fact. The findings also suggest that debriefing and peer support should be treated as core components of disaster response infrastructure, not optional extras.

It is equally important to note the boundaries of what this study can claim. As an interpretive phenomenological investigation conducted at a single university hospital, its purpose is depth of understanding rather than statistical generalization. Twenty residents in Adana cannot represent every clinician in every disaster. The authors themselves state that transferability to other settings should be judged in light of local health-system and disaster contexts. Still, the mechanisms they describe, the destabilization of professional identity when the helper becomes the victim, and the shift from individual to team-based conceptions of competence, are likely to resonate wherever disasters strike populated areas with functioning hospitals, from seismic zones to flood plains to regions affected by conflict.

The 2023 Türkiye earthquake was one of the deadliest seismic events of the modern era, and the international response, acknowledged by the study’s authors with gratitude to volunteer responders and medical teams from around the world, demonstrated both the power and the fragility of collective humanitarian action. What this research adds is a quieter, more personal layer to that story: the testimony of young physicians who stood at the intersection of catastrophe and care. Their experiences suggest that the next generation of disaster preparedness must be designed for whole human beings, professionals who grieve, fear, and doubt even as they work. If health systems take that lesson seriously, the residents of Adana may have contributed not only to the survival of their patients, but to a fundamental redesign of how medicine trains and protects its own.

Subject of Research: Experiences of family medicine resident physicians providing care during the 2023 Türkiye earthquake

Article Title: Experiences of family medicine resident physicians at a university hospital during the 2023 Türkiye earthquake: a qualitative study

Article References: Özer, Z. Y., Okyar, Ç., Yüce, S., Boz, A., & Arslan, Y. K. (2026). Experiences of family medicine resident physicians at a university hospital during the 2023 Türkiye earthquake: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15755-w

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12913-026-15755-w

Keywords: disaster medicine, family medicine, resident physicians, Türkiye earthquake, qualitative research, interpretive phenomenology, professional identity, disaster preparedness, health services research, psychological support, primary care, medical education

The scale of the clinical responsibility involved is difficult to overstate. Women spend roughly one-third of their lives in the postmenopausal state, a prolonged physiological phase associated with vasomotor symptoms, sleep disruption, genitourinary changes, and elevated risks for conditions such as osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. Evidence has long suggested that many family physicians graduate from residency with significant gaps in menopause-related knowledge and clinical skills. That shortfall is especially consequential in rural and underserved communities, where access to gynecologists and menopause specialists is limited and women rely on their family physicians for the majority of their care throughout their lifetimes. In such settings, the quality of menopause care a patient receives is effectively determined by the quality of the education her physician received years earlier.

Awareness of this problem has grown in recent years, and it has begun to reshape formal training expectations. The American Academy of Family Physicians’ women’s health curricular guidelines now identify menopause management as a core knowledge area, a designation that signals its importance within residency education. What the guidelines do not do, however, is require formal competency assessment. Without structured evaluation of whether residents can actually counsel a patient about hormone therapy options, interpret symptom patterns, or manage the long-term health consequences of estrogen decline, the actual depth and consistency of menopause education across hundreds of programs remains unknown. The contrast with the United Kingdom is notable: there, menopause competency is formally evaluated within training frameworks, giving educators a measurable standard against which to judge readiness for independent practice.

To characterize the current state of menopause education in American family medicine training, researchers conducted a national survey of family medicine residency program directors. The goals were threefold: to describe the breadth and structure of existing menopause curricula, to identify gaps in educational content and clinical training opportunities, and to understand directors’ perspectives on the need for improvement, including their interest in a national standardized menopause curriculum. Program directors occupy a unique vantage point for such an assessment, since they oversee both the didactic curriculum and the clinical rotations through which residents encounter menopausal patients in practice.

The response to the omnibus survey was substantial. Of 313 family medicine program directors who responded, a 44.7 percent response rate, 279 completed the menopause-specific questions. The headline finding was in some ways encouraging: the overwhelming majority, 94 percent, reported either a dedicated menopause curriculum or menopause education integrated within a broader women’s health curriculum. On its face, that figure suggests that menopause is no longer the neglected afterthought it was once perceived to be in primary care training. Yet the study’s deeper message is that incorporation is not the same as mastery. Content coverage was variable across programs, and formal assessments of competency were largely absent, meaning that two residents graduating from different programs, or even from the same program in different years, may emerge with very different levels of preparation.

That variability matters clinically. Menopause management is not a single skill but a bundle of them: distinguishing menopausal symptoms from other conditions, weighing the risks and benefits of hormonal and nonhormonal therapies in light of a patient’s medical history, managing the transition for women with contraindications to estrogen, and addressing the skeletal, metabolic, and cardiovascular implications of the postmenopausal state. A curriculum that touches on these topics unevenly, without verifying that residents have absorbed and can apply the material, leaves room for precisely the knowledge gaps that earlier evidence has documented among practicing family physicians. The researchers concluded that scalable, on-demand learning modules with built-in competency assessment represent a promising avenue for strengthening menopause training, a model that would allow programs to standardize core content while measuring whether learners have actually attained it.

The timing of the study underscores the urgency. The majority of women over 50 in the United States receive their cervical cancer screening from internal medicine and family medicine clinicians, a statistic that illustrates how much routine and preventive midlife care flows through primary care rather than specialty channels. This dependence is amplified for women in rural and underserved communities, where specialist access is limited and the family physician may be the only clinician positioned to recognize and treat menopause-related symptoms. As demographic trends push more women into the menopause transition each year, the gap between what residency programs are producing and what patients need threatens to widen, unless training keeps pace with demand.

Professional organizations have begun to respond to the shortfall that the new study again documents. The Menopause Society, recognizing both the lack of formal menopause education and the need for scalable learning, created training materials designed to address the gap. Its Menopause Academy recently launched a centralized online hub for menopause education, offering courses, continuing medical education modules, videos, and podcasts. The materials are designed to fit conveniently into busy clinician schedules, an acknowledgment that practicing physicians cannot simply return to residency to fill in missing knowledge. The effort is part of the Society’s broader NextGen Now initiative, which aims to expand and improve midlife women’s health training for healthcare professionals while also addressing health inequities in areas that lack specialist access.

Leadership within the Society framed the new findings as confirmation of a persistent problem rather than a surprise. Dr. Stephanie Faubion, medical director for The Menopause Society, noted that menopause education initiatives such as those offered by The Menopause Society and others aim to close the persistent and important gaps in menopause training that are again demonstrated in the highlighted study. She emphasized that ensuring menopause education is integrated into residency training programs is key, as is providing learning opportunities for busy clinicians already in practice. The dual-track approach, reforming residency curricula while simultaneously upskilling the existing workforce, reflects the reality that even the most ambitious curricular reforms will take years to reach every practicing physician.

The study, published under the title Building capacity for menopause care: a national needs assessment of menopause education in U.S. family medicine residency programs, ultimately points toward a specific prescription: move menopause education from incidental exposure to assessed competency. The near-universal presence of menopause content in family medicine residencies suggests the will exists; the absence of formal evaluation and the variability of coverage suggest the infrastructure does not yet match it. With 56 percent of program directors agreeing there was a need to improve menopause education, and with national organizations building standardized, on-demand resources to meet that need, the conditions for change appear to be converging. For the millions of women who will navigate the menopause transition under the care of a family physician in the coming decades, whether that convergence translates into better care may depend on how quickly residency programs adopt the kind of formal, measurable training standards that the study’s authors and the field’s leading professional body are now calling for.

Subject of Research: Menopause education and training gaps in U.S. family medicine residency programs

Article Title: Family physicians lack formal, consistent menopause care training

Article References: Family physicians lack formal, consistent menopause care training. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: menopause, family medicine, residency training, medical education, The Menopause Society, women's health, competency assessment, primary care, program directors, curriculum, midlife health, health equity

The Stott and Davis model, first described decades ago, remains one of the most widely taught consultation frameworks in general practice. It organizes every encounter around four tasks: managing the presenting problem, modifying help-seeking behavior, managing continuing problems, and opportunistic health promotion. Its strength lies in efficiency and completeness—it reminds clinicians not to stop at the first complaint but to scan the consultation for missed opportunities. Its weakness, the authors argue, is that it says nothing explicit about the deeper dimensions of the patient in front of the doctor. A clinician can tick all four boxes and still fail to register the depression, the unemployment, or the spiritual distress that shapes why a patient came in at all.

The biopsychosocial–spiritual model addresses that gap on the theoretical side. Building on Engel’s classic biopsychosocial critique of reductionist biomedicine, the BPSS framework insists that illness is experienced simultaneously at biological, psychological, social, and spiritual levels. In principle, it offers a comprehensive map of patient needs. In practice, as Tshitenge and Bogatsu note, its application in routine consultations remains inconsistent, particularly where clinicians are pressed for time and have no structured method for translating a broad theoretical lens into concrete clinical actions. Holism, without a procedural backbone, tends to evaporate under the pressure of a ten-minute appointment.

The third ingredient is the Clinical Reasoning Cycle, an iterative model of expert thinking that moves through stages such as considering the patient situation, collecting cues and information, processing and interpreting those cues, identifying problems, establishing goals, taking action, and evaluating outcomes, with reflection feeding back into the next cycle. Clinical reasoning research has long shown that diagnostic errors often arise not from gaps in knowledge but from failures in the reasoning process itself—premature closure, inadequate cue gathering, and insufficient reflection. The CRC was designed to make those invisible cognitive steps explicit and teachable, which is precisely why the authors chose it as the connective tissue of their integrated framework.

The core technical move of the paper is an alignment operation. Each of the four Stott and Davis tasks is mapped onto the iterative stages of the Clinical Reasoning Cycle, so that managing the presenting problem, for example, becomes not a single act but a full reasoning loop: gathering cues about the complaint, interpreting them in light of the patient’s context, establishing goals with the patient, acting, and evaluating. At the same time, the four BPSS domains—biological, psychological, social, and spiritual—are embedded across every phase of every loop. This means that cue collection is not limited to biomedical data; it explicitly includes psychosocial and spiritual cues. Problem identification is not confined to diagnoses; it encompasses the broader patient situation. The framework thereby converts two parallel, disconnected traditions—structured consultation management and holistic care theory—into a single operational sequence.

The authors also describe how the framework functions educationally. Because the CRC stages are explicit, learners can be assessed on each one: Did the student gather social and spiritual cues, or only biomedical ones? Did the student consider health promotion opportunities within the consultation rather than deferring them indefinitely? Did the student reflect on the encounter afterward? The integrated model provides what the authors call a coherent scaffold for teaching consultation skills alongside clinical reasoning, promoting reflective practice and professional development rather than treating these as separate curricular silos. In settings where family medicine training is expanding rapidly, including across sub-Saharan Africa, such a scaffold could standardize expectations for learners while remaining flexible enough for experienced clinicians to apply intuitively.

Context matters here. The paper comes from Botswana, a health system characterized by high burdens of HIV, tuberculosis, noncommunicable diseases, and increasing multimorbidity, often delivered with limited staff and infrastructure. The authors position the framework as particularly applicable to primary care and diverse, resource-limited settings marked by complexity. In such environments, a consultation model that assumes a single uncomplicated problem and a well-resourced referral chain simply does not fit. By explicitly incorporating sociocultural and spiritual dimensions, the framework is also designed to support culturally responsive and patient-centred care—an important consideration in communities where spiritual explanatory models of illness strongly influence help-seeking behavior, adherence, and trust in the health system.

The paper is careful about its own epistemic status. It is a conceptual contribution, not an empirical trial; the authors explicitly state that no human participants, data, or animal subjects were involved, and that ethics approval was therefore not applicable. They acknowledge that further research is required to evaluate the framework’s feasibility, acceptability, and impact on clinician performance, learner outcomes, and patient care. This honesty is notable in a field where new frameworks are sometimes promoted as if conceptual elegance were equivalent to demonstrated effectiveness. The authors also report no specific funding and no competing interests, and the article is published open access under a Creative Commons licence, making the full technical alignment of the three models freely available to educators and clinicians worldwide.

What would evaluation look like in practice? Educational researchers could test whether trainees taught with the integrated framework gather more complete psychosocial histories or identify more health promotion opportunities than controls taught with the Stott and Davis model alone. Health services researchers could examine whether the framework improves patient-reported measures of person-centredness or reduces consultation-related dissatisfaction. Implementation scientists could ask whether the framework survives contact with real appointment schedules, electronic medical record templates, and the cognitive load of a busy clinic—the same pressures that have historically eroded holistic ideals. The authors’ mention of electronic medical records in their abbreviations suggests they anticipate these practical integration questions, even though the published abstract does not detail EMR-specific workflows.

The significance of the paper lies less in any single novel claim than in its synthesis. Medical education has long taught consultation models and clinical reasoning as separate subjects, and holistic care as a vague aspiration. By binding the organizational completeness of Stott and Davis, the dimensional breadth of BPSS, and the cognitive transparency of the Clinical Reasoning Cycle into one framework, Tshitenge and Bogatsu offer primary care a structured way to be holistic—something that can be taught, practiced, assessed, and refined. Whether it will change what actually happens in consultations between a clinician and a patient with three chronic diseases, a sick child, and a recent bereavement is an empirical question the authors themselves put squarely on the research agenda. For now, they have provided a testable blueprint for one of medicine’s most stubborn challenges: seeing the whole person in the time available.

Subject of Research: An integrated clinical reasoning and consultation framework combining the Stott and Davis model with the biopsychosocial–spiritual framework for primary care and medical education

Article Title: Integrating the Stott and Davis model with the biopsychosocial–spiritual framework: a comprehensive approach to clinical reasoning in primary care

Article References: Tshitenge, S., & Bogatsu, Y. (2026). Integrating the Stott and Davis model with the biopsychosocial–spiritual framework: a comprehensive approach to clinical reasoning in primary care. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10459-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10459-5

Keywords: clinical reasoning, Stott and Davis model, biopsychosocial–spiritual model, primary care, medical education, consultation models, Clinical Reasoning Cycle, person-centred care, holistic care, family medicine, resource-limited settings, reflective practice