Background Reflective writing (RW) allows physicians to step back, review their thoughts, goals and actions and recognise how their perspectives, motives and emotions impact their conduct. RW also helps physicians consolidate their learning and boosts their professional and personal development. In the absence of a consistent approach and amidst growing threats to RW’s place in medical training, a review of theories of RW in medical education and a review to map regnant practices, programs and assessment methods are proposed. Methods A Systematic Evidence-Based Approach guided Systematic Scoping Review (SSR in SEBA) was adopted to guide and structure the two concurrent reviews. Independent searches were carried out on publications featured between 1st January 2000 and 30th June 2022 in PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA, Scopus, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, GreyLit and ProQuest. The Split Approach saw the included articles analysed separately using thematic and content analysis. Like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, the Jigsaw Perspective combined the themes and categories identified from both reviews. The Funnelling Process saw the themes/categories created compared with the tabulated summaries. The final domains which emerged structured the discussion that followed. Results A total of 33,076 abstracts were reviewed, 1826 full-text articles were appraised and 199 articles were included and analysed. The domains identified were theories and models, current methods, benefits and shortcomings, and recommendations. Conclusions This SSR in SEBA suggests that a structured approach to RW shapes the physician’s belief system, guides their practice and nurtures their professional identity formation. In advancing a theoretical concept of RW, this SSR in SEBA proffers new insight into the process of RW, and the need for longitudinal, personalised feedback and support.
Background Nurturing effective physician-patient relationships is essential to the provision of patient-centred care. Palliative care physicians may apply boundary-crossings or breaches in professional standards to nurture effective physician-patient relationships. Being highly individualized and shaped by the physician’s narratives, clinical experience, and contextual considerations, boundary-crossings are susceptible to ethical and professional violations. To better appreciate this concept, we employ the Ring Theory of Personhood (RToP) to map the effects of boundary-crossings on the physician’s belief systems. Methods As part of the Tool Design SEBA methodology, a Systematic Evidence-Based Approach (SEBA) guided systematic scoping review was employed to guide the design of a semi-structured interview questionnaire with palliative care physicians. The transcripts were simultaneously content and thematically analysed. The themes and categories identified were combined using the Jigsaw Perspective and the resulting domains formed the basis for the discussion. Results The domains identified from the 12 semi-structured interviews were catalysts and boundary-crossings. Boundary-crossings attempt to address threats to a physician’s belief systems (catalysts) and are highly individualized. Employ of boundary-crossings depend on the physician’s sensitivity to these ‘catalysts’, their judgement and willingness to act, and their ability to balance various considerations and reflect on their actions and their ramifications. These experiences reshape belief systems, understandings of boundary-crossings and may influence decision-making and practice, underscoring the potential for greater professional breaches when unchecked. Conclusion Underlining its longitudinal effects, the Krishna Model underscores the importance of longitudinal support, assessment and oversight of palliative care physicians, and lays the foundation for a RToP-based tool to be employed within portfolios.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.