Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36624494›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

A systematic scoping review of reflective writing in medical education.

Jia Yin Lim, Simon Yew Kuang Ong, Chester Yan Hao Ng, Karis Li En Chan, Song Yi Elizabeth Anne Wu, Wei Zheng So, Glenn Jin Chong Tey, Yun Xiu Lam, Nicholas Lu Xin Gao, Yun Xue Lim and 9 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing 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

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

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

19 authors.

Jia Yin LimYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Simon Yew Kuang OngDivision of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Crescent, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Chester Yan Hao NgYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Karis Li En ChanYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Song Yi Elizabeth Anne WuYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Wei Zheng SoYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Glenn Jin Chong TeyYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Yun Xiu LamYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Nicholas Lu Xin GaoYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Yun Xue LimYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Ryan Yong Kiat TayYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Ian Tze Yong LeongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Nur Diana Abdul RahmanDivision of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Crescent, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Min ChiamDivision of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Crescent, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Crystal LimMedical Social Services, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Rd, Singapore, 169608, Singapore.
Gillian Li Gek PhuaDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Crescent, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Vengadasalam MurugamDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Crescent, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Eng Koon OngDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Crescent, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Lalit Kumar Radha KrishnaYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, NUHS Tower Block, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Level 11, Singapore, 119228, Singapore. lalit.radha-krishna@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReflective 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsA 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.

conclusionsThis 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.

Indexed as

Education, MedicalPhysiciansCurriculumHumansLearningWritingMedical educationPostgraduate medical educationProfessional identity formationReflectionReflective writingUndergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID36624494
PMCPMC9830881

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.