ArticleAtencion primaria2009
[The reflection group as a tool for improving satisfaction and developing the introspective ability of health professionals].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Scientific perspectives and training models. Reply to the letter "on unethical (bad) doctors"].Atencion primaria · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the development of a reflection group of primary care professionals in Navarra, from October 2007 to June 2008, using case presentations.
designDescriptive, retrospective study.
settingPrimary care.
participantsOne psychiatrist, one nurse and eleven family doctors.
methodEight sessions of two and a half hours were carried out; informal evaluations after each session; systematic taking of notes by three members of the group, with subsequent pooling of resources; evaluation of the group in the last session.
resultsThis was a participatory, self-reflective and practical group. A total of 52 cases were presented, which were grouped into six areas: difficult interviews, professional errors, female abuse, ethical dilemmas and Health care team relationships. The participants talked about the emotions of the clinic, obtaining tools and protocols for subsequent situations similar to the cases presented, as was expressed in the evaluation.
conclusionsA wide range of cases were presented, with a series of emotions having been produced in the participants who from a pooling of resources and reflection emerged a self-perception of improved satisfaction and introspective ability. The variety of cases showed the complexity of the work of the health professional.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.