A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Group Reflective Practice in Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Used primarily as a pedagogical evaluation tool for didactic teaching and skill development, reflective practice (RP) for its own merits is poorly understood. This study aimed to systematically review the literature regarding the role of group RP in fostering empathy, wellbeing, and professionalism in medical students. METHODS: Electronic searches of empirical studies published between 1 January 2010 and 22 March 2022 from Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO databases were conducted. Empirical studies of any design (qualitative or quantitative) which included RP (1) involving medical students; (2) with a focus on fostering empathy, or professionalism, or personal wellbeing; and (3) provided in a group setting were included. Duplicates, non-English articles, grey literature and articles using RP to examine pedagogy and specific technical skills were excluded. Both authors screened articles independently to derive a final list of included studies, with any discrepancies resolved by discussion, until consensus reached. Articles were rated for methodological quality using the Attree and Milton checklist for qualitative studies; the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria, and the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for quantitative studies. RESULTS: Of 314 articles identified, 18 were included: 9 qualitative; 4 quantitative and 5 mixed methodology. Settings included United States (6), United Kingdom (3), Australia (3), France (2), Taiwan (2), Germany (1), and Ireland (1). Themes were (i) professionalism: bridging theoretical paradigms and practice; (ii) halting empathy decline; (iii) wellbeing: shared experience. Additional themes regarding the "successful" delivery of RP groups in facilitating these outcomes also emerged. CONCLUSIONS: This first systematic review of group RP in medical students shows that RP may bring theory to life in clinical dilemmas, while fostering collegiality and mitigating against isolation amongst students, despite the absence of studies directly examining wellbeing. These findings support the value of RP integration focusing on emotive and humanitarian processes into contemporary medical education for medical students. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022322496.
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 | 0.019 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".