Critical reflection in team‐based practice: A narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Research on critical reflection (a process of recognising and challenging assumptions that frame health care practice) has demonstrated strong potential for making health care more collaborative and equitable, yet its enactment within team-based health care remains underexplored. We conducted a narrative review to advance understanding of how critical reflection develops, occurs in and impacts team-based practice and care. METHODS: We searched three databases (Medline, CINAHL and Scopus) for articles related to the concepts of critical reflection and/or critically reflective practice in the context of team-based health care and examined how teams engage with those theoretical concepts, to inform ideas for a new approach to support critically reflective practice. FINDINGS: The search identified 974 citations of which nine articles showed elements of critical reflection in team-based practice. However, since only one of the nine included articles explicitly used the term 'critical reflection' in their research, critical reflection as a theoretical concept was found to be largely missing from the current team-based health care literature. Instead, aspects of critical reflection were evident in terms of challenging power hierarchies and questioning practice assumptions through dialogue, with a goal of collaborative practice. This sharing of knowledge and skills allowed teams to push boundaries and innovate together in practice. The included articles also emphasised the importance of creating a purposeful environment for open dialogue and practice change to occur. CONCLUSION: To support equitable care through collaborative practices, we suggest dialogue as and for critical reflection should be explicitly developed and researched within team-based health care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".