PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10972755

Practice-based learning: views on the development of a reflective learning tool.

B Pee·T Woodman·H Fry·E S Davenport
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

CONTEXT: This study reports the first part of a funded project to develop a tool to improve and record learning, known as a Progress File. A Progress File typically contains an element of reflection and a means of recording achievement. AIM: The aim of the study was to collect and understand the attitudes and experiences of students and tutors with regard to reflection, and to determine their views on the development and implementation of a Progress File for one member of the dental team, the dental therapist. METHOD: A consultation exercise was undertaken in four institutions which train dental therapists. A total of 76 students and tutors were interviewed individually or in groups. Examples of reflective tools were used to prompt discussion and feedback. Emergent themes were derived from content analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified many uses for the Progress File within and beyond their courses. They also expressed concerns regarding the effectiveness and feasibility of Progress File learning within present educational environments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Successful integration of the Progress File into courses of medical and dental education may depend upon institutional culture change and a move towards a system which facilitates and rewards reflection on learning. The results will inform development of the File.

Explore related subjects

Attitude of Health PersonnelCurriculumEducation, Dental, ContinuingHumansProblem-Based LearningUnited KingdomJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B Pee, T Woodman, H Fry, E S Davenport. 2000. Practice-based learning: views on the development of a reflective learning tool.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00670.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

EBM in action.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2002

Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence for the acceptability and effectiveness of screening women for domestic violence in healthcare settings. DESIGN: Systematic review of published quantitative studies. SESRCH STRATEGY: Three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL) were searched for articles published in the English language up to February 2001. INCLUDED STUDIES: Surveys that elicited the attitudes of women and health professionals on the screening of women in health settings; comparative studies conducted in healthcare settings that measured rates of identification of domestic violence in the presence and absence of screening; studies measuring outcomes of interventions for women identified in health settings who experience abuse from a male partner or ex-partner compared with abused women not receiving an intervention. RESULTS: 20 papers met the inclusion criteria. In four surveys, 43-85% of women respondents found screening in healthcare settings acceptable. Two surveys of health professionals' views found that two thirds of physicians and almost half of emergency department nurses were not in favour of screening. In nine studies of screening compared with no screening, most detected a greater proportion of abused women identified by healthcare professionals. Six studies of interventions used weak study designs and gave inconsistent results. Other than increased referral to outside agencies, little evidence exists for changes in important outcomes such as decreased exposure to violence. No studies measured quality of life, mental health outcomes, or potential harm to women from screening programmes. CONCLUSION: Although domestic violence is a common problem with major health consequences for women, implementation of screening programmes in healthcare settings cannot be justified. Evidence of the benefit of specific interventions and lack of harm from screening is needed.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗