Radiation therapists’ perspectives of the role of reflection in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A recurring theme from the literature is that the definition of reflection is nebulous and/or complex. Many authors have suggested that more research needs to be conducted to better understand an individual’s perception of reflection and reflective practice, and how these concepts affect their clinical practice as well as their personal growth and development. This paper offers the findings of a qualitative study of radiation therapists in Canada. The aim of the study was to explore radiation therapist’s understanding of the concept of reflection, and to understand how they incorporated it into their daily practice. Secondary objectives were to examine some of the perceived barriers to its use, and the possible challenges of implementing reflective writing. Two focus groups were initially conducted, and a follow-up questionnaire was developed using the themes generated from the focus groups. The questionnaire was distributed to radiation therapists at two large cancer centres in Toronto, Canada. Most participants indicated that it is an integral part of their practice and professional lives, and that they use a variety of different methods for engaging in reflection. It is not without its barriers, but many of these can be overcome by providing time, coaching and a supportive work environment. Respondents were divided as to whether they would benefit from being taught reflection; however, small group teaching would be the favoured method. Further study is suggested to determine whether there are any improvements to patient care and in particular patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".