ArticleBMC medical education2025
Structured reflective sessions enhance knowledge and clinical skills in operating room technology students: a Solomon four-group study.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimClinical education plays a critical role in preparing operating room technology students for high-stakes, procedure-intensive environments. However, traditional training methods often fail to promote deep, transferable learning and structured reflective habits. Importantly, the effectiveness of structured reflective sessions in operating room technology education remains underexplored. This study therefore aimed to evaluate whether structured reflective sessions improve theoretical knowledge, practical skills, and educational satisfaction among operating room technology students. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a Solomon four-group quasi-experimental study to separate the effects of the reflection-based intervention, pre-testing, and their interaction. Sixty undergraduate students in the 3rd and 5th semesters were assigned to four groups (intervention with pre-test, control with pre-test, intervention without pre-test, control without pre-test). The intervention used Gibbs' six-stage model and comprised a 2-hour introductory workshop, weekly scenario-based analyses and guided small-group discussions over six weeks, and individual reflective journaling during clinical placements. Data were collected with a validated 20-item MCQ, Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) checklists, and a standardized satisfaction questionnaire. Statistical analyses included paired and independent t-tests, ANCOVA (to adjust for baseline scores), and two-way ANOVA (to test pre-test × treatment interactions).
resultsParticipants in the intervention groups showed significantly higher post-test MCQ scores (mean = 17.46 vs. 12.86; p < 0.001) and higher DOPS scores (mean = 88.8 vs. 53.0; p < 0.001) compared with controls. Educational satisfaction was also greater in the intervention arm (mean = 78.35 vs. 70.97; p < 0.001). Solomon-design analyses indicated that these gains were attributable to the reflective intervention and not to pre-test sensitization. The intervention produced a large effect on clinical experience scores (partial η² = 0.41).
conclusionsStructured reflective sessions, delivered via Gibbs' reflective cycle, significantly enhance theoretical understanding, psychomotor performance, and learner satisfaction among operating room technology students. We recommend integrating structured reflective practice into clinical curricula to strengthen the depth and sustainability of professional learning in high-complexity clinical settings.
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.