ReviewBMC medical education2025
A rapid review of critical theory in health professions education.
Review in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCritical theories, such as Critical Race Theory, are a group of theories developed to explicate structural, historical, and social issues that perpetuate inequities and might inform institutional efforts. This study reviewed critical theory use in health professions education with the primary objectives of understanding how and to what extent these theories have been applied.
methodsA rapid review was performed in October 2021 with four electronic databases. Scholarship was screened with Covidence based on inclusion (critical theory and health professions education) and exclusion (gray literature, not written in English, not critical theory, not education setting, not peer reviewed) criteria. Data were extracted, charted, and analyzed by three reviewers through Excel, with findings reviewed by the entire research team.
resultsA total of 154 pieces of scholarship were included. Most scholarship emerged between 2010 and 2019 (n = 69, 44.8%) and nursing (n = 93, 54.4%) was most represented. Scholars were most frequently from the United States (n = 62, 35.6%), used theoretical methodologies (n = 84, 50.3%), and leveraged Critical & Critical Social Theory (n = 67, 30.7%). In scholarship with major theory use (n = 52, 33.8%), scholars also most commonly used Critical Theory & Critical Social Theory (n = 25, 34.2%).
conclusionsThis review exposed gaps in the use of critical theory in health professions education. Scholars should consider expanding the application of critical theories, additional research methodologies, and aspects of education that were largely absent. Expanding critical theory to further explicate aspects of training programs and institutions could deepen our understanding of the mechanisms impacting student development and success in health professions.
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.