Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40599215›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of occupational therapy2025

Occupational therapy students experience professional reasoning during their practice-based learning: A dialogical analysis.

Clare Beanlands, Nicki Thomas, Lynn Summerfield-Mann, Sarah Church

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of occupational therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Clare BeanlandsLondon South Bank University, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9645-2882
Nicki ThomasLondon South Bank University, London, UK.
Lynn Summerfield-MannAECC, University College Bournemouth, Bournemouth, UK.
Sarah ChurchLondon South Bank University, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Professional reasoning is important in making informed and autonomous decisions and practice-based learning provides an opportunity for students to develop this. This study explores the experience of professional reasoning during practice-based learning from the student's perspective. Method: A dialogical approach was used, and this is a qualitative approach rooted in the analysis of dialogue and subjectivity. It is based on the philosophy of Mikhail Bakhtin. Bakhtin suggests speech is composed of different genres indicating how we position ourselves in relation to others. Twelve occupational therapy students were interviewed after their final practice placement. Findings: Professional reasoning during practice-based learning was experienced as complex, multifactorial and contextually influenced. It was a means of enacting, affirming, and negotiating a professional identity, and of being socialised into the reasoning of the profession. Person and occupation-centred values, narrative and empathy influenced students' reasoning but could conflict with educator and institutional demands. The findings also illustrate the emotionality of learning to reason. Conclusion: Both the cognitive and affective aspects of learning to reason need consideration when supporting students. Educators and universities need to address the emotionality associated with reasoning and support students to develop person and occupation-centred practice within the pragmatic constraints of practice.

Indexed as

dialogicalemotionOccupational therapy studentpractice-based learningprofessional identityprofessional reasoning

Identifiers

PMID40599215
PMCPMC12207615

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.