Using reflective learning to improve the impact of continuing education in the context of work rehabilitation

Abstract

Reflective learning has been described as a promising approach for ameliorating the impact of continuing education (CE) programs. However, there are still very few studies that have investigated how occupational therapists use reflection to improve the integration of CE program content in their decision-making processes. The study objectives were to describe how these professionals, working in the sector of work rehabilitation, used reflective learning to integrate research evidence into their clinical decision-making process and to identify the factors that influenced the reflective learning process. A collaborative research study was conducted. Eight occupational therapists were recruited to participate to the group that was convened for 12 meetings and held during a 15-month period. The strategies used were critical analysis of ill-structured and authentic clinical situations, peer support, reflective journal writing and complementary reading. The group facilitator acted as a research evidence mentor and guided the group process. The data collected was analyzed using the grounded theory method. The reflective learning process, used by the participants, enabled them to change their perspective at six different stages in their decision-making process. The participants developed their ability to use different types of reflective thinking: introspection, concept attainment, self-attribution, problem solving, action planning and reorganization. The factors that most influenced learning were: ease in sharing experience, normative beliefs, coping with negative emotions, perceived self-efficacy, social support and risk taking. Results led to the development of the Model of Research Utilization Grounded in Critical Reflection.

Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions

“…Thirty-two studies met our inclusion criteria (Figure 1) [45-76]. Both quantitative (n = 29) and qualitative (n = 3) research designs were represented.…”

“…Fifteen studies investigated a single KT intervention (pharmacy n = 5, physiotherapy n = 2, occupational therapy n = 4, dietetics n = 3, speech-language pathology n = 2) [46,50,51,53,54,59,60,63,64,67-69,71,75,76]. Seventeen studies examined multiple KT interventions (pharmacy n = 7, physiotherapy n = 9, occupational therapy n = 2) [45,47-49,52,55-58,61,62,65,66,70,72-74].…”

“…Seventeen studies examined multiple KT interventions (pharmacy n = 7, physiotherapy n = 9, occupational therapy n = 2) [45,47-49,52,55-58,61,62,65,66,70,72-74]. Following the EPOC classification scheme, the predominant single KT intervention was educational meetings (n = 11) [46,51,53,54,59,63,64,69,71,75,76], followed by educational materials (n = 2) [50,67], educational outreach visits (n = 1) [68], and a financial intervention (n = 1) [60]. The studies employing multiple interventions all contained at least one education-related component.…”

“…When the KT interventions were examined by profession, educational meetings were used most often in dietetics (n = 3; 100% of dietetics studies) [46,53,63]; occupational therapy (n = 3; 50% of occupational therapy studies) [59,75,76]; pharmacy (n = 3; 25% of pharmacy studies) [51,54,69]. Pharmacy studies employed the widest range of interventions, including multiple interventions (n = 7; 58%) [45,49,55-58,62,65], educational meetings (n = 2; 16%) [54,69], educational material (n = 1; 8%) [50], and financial intervention (n = 1; 8%) [60].…”

“…, professional/process outcomes, patient outcomes, and economic outcomes). Of the 32 included studies, the primary outcomes were professional/process outcomes (n = 25) [46,47,49-59,63-68,70,71,73-76], patient outcomes (n = 4) [48,60,62,72], and economic outcomes (n = 2) [61,69]. One study identified both professional/process and patient outcomes as primary outcomes ( e.g.…”