Reflective Practice in Physical Therapy: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many practitioners experience complex, uncertain, and unique clinical practice situations that can be navigated with reflection. Little is known about the theoretical and pragmatic perspectives of reflection in physical therapy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper was to examine the literature on reflection in physical therapy and identify gaps in the literature. DATA SOURCE: The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsycINFO were used to identify articles. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected to describe: (1) theoretical concepts related to reflection, (2) examples of reflection, and (3) the use of reflection in clinical or educational contexts. DATA EXTRACTION: Authors, year of publication, country of origin, publication type or source, methodology, conceptual approach (including terminology used, definition of terminology used), and practical approach (including theoretical underpinning, context of reflection/reflective practice, and target group) guided the data extraction. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 46 articles were reviewed spanning from 1992 to 2017, which included research studies, field articles, editorials, and a review article. Theoretical underpinnings of reflection were based on the thoughts of Donald Schön. Written approaches to reflection were most common, and reflection was used to inform education, clinical practice, and professional growth. LIMITATIONS: As with any review paper, there is a certain level of interpretation required when collating and interpreting data. CONCLUSIONS: Reflection in physical therapy could be advanced by a thorough conceptualization of reflective practice, a broader and deeper pool of research to inform optimal implementation of reflection across the career span from learners to experts, and a clear definition and linkage of reflection to epistemologies of physical therapy practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.217 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".