Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34294058›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2021

Health professionals and students' experiences of reflective writing in learning: A qualitative meta-synthesis.

Giovanna Artioli, Laura Deiana, Francesco De Vincenzo, Margherita Raucci, Giovanna Amaducci, Maria Chiara Bassi, Silvia Di Leo, Mark Hayter, Luca Ghirotto

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Giovanna ArtioliAzienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Viale Umberto I, 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy. giovanna.artioli@ausl.re.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1810-0857
Laura DeianaMedical and Surgical Department, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Francesco De VincenzoEuropean University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Margherita RaucciAzienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Viale Umberto I, 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Giovanna AmaducciAzienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Viale Umberto I, 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Maria Chiara BassiAzienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Viale Umberto I, 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Silvia Di LeoAzienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Viale Umberto I, 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Mark HayterFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Luca GhirottoAzienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Viale Umberto I, 50, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReflective writing provides an opportunity for health professionals and students to learn from their mistakes, successes, anxieties, and worries that otherwise would remain disjointed and worthless. This systematic review addresses the following question: "What are the experiences of health professionals and students in applying reflective writing during their education and training?"

methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Our search comprised six electronic databases: MedLine, Embase, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Eric, and Scopus. Our initial search produced 1237 titles, excluding duplicates that we removed. After title and abstract screening, 17 articles met the inclusion criteria. We identified descriptive themes and the conceptual elements explaining the health professionals' and students' experience using reflective writing during their academic and in-service training by performing a meta-synthesis.

resultsWe identified four main categories (and related sub-categories) through the meta-synthesis: reflection and reflexivity, accomplishing learning potential, building a philosophical and empathic approach, and identifying reflective writing feasibility. We placed the main categories into an interpretative model which explains the users' experiences of reflective writing during their education and training. Reflective writing triggered reflection and reflexivity that allows, on the one hand, skills development, professional growth, and the ability to act on change; on the other hand, the acquisition of empathic attitudes and sensitivity towards one's own and others' emotions. Perceived barriers and impeding factors and facilitating ones, like timing and strategies for using reflective writing, were also identified.

conclusionsThe use of this learning methodology is crucial today because of the recognition of the increasing complexity of healthcare contexts requiring professionals to learn advanced skills beyond their clinical ones. Implementing reflective writing-based courses and training in university curricula and clinical contexts can benefit human and professional development.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelWritingClinical CompetenceCurriculumHumansStudentsHealth care educationHealth professionalsHealth studentsqualitative meta-synthesisreflective writing

Identifiers

PMID34294058
PMCPMC8299581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.