CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 174Innovations in Medical EducationReflective Practices in EducationEmpathy and Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reflecting on Reflections: Enhancement of Medical Education Curriculum With Structured Field Notes and Guided Feedback

Wald, Hedy S., Davis, Stephen W., Reis, Shmuel P., Monroe, Alicia D., Borkan, Jeffrey M.·2009·Academic Medicine
DOI 10.1097/acm.0b013e3181a8592f
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The promotion of reflective capacity within the teaching of clinical skills and professionalism is posited as fostering the development of competent health practitioners. An innovative approach combines structured reflective writing by medical students and individualized faculty feedback to those students to augment instruction on reflective practice. A course for preclinical students at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, entitled "Doctoring," combined reflective writing assignments (field notes) with instruction in clinical skills and professionalism and early clinical exposure in a small-group format. Students generated multiple e-mail field notes in response to structured questions on course topics. Individualized feedback from a physician-behavioral scientist dyad supported the students' reflective process by fostering critical-thinking skills, highlighting appreciation of the affective domain, and providing concrete recommendations. The development and implementation of this innovation are presented, as is an analysis of the written evaluative comments of students taking the Doctoring course. Theoretical and clinical rationales for features of the innovation and supporting evidence of their effectiveness are presented. Qualitative analyses of students' evaluations yielded four themes of beneficial contributions to their learning experience: promoting deeper and more purposeful reflection, the value of (interdisciplinary) feedback, the enhancement of group process, and personal and professional development. Evaluation of the innovation was the fifth theme; some limitations are described, and suggestions for improvement are provided. Issues of the quality of the educational paradigm, generalizability, and sustainability are addressed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0b013e3181a8592f

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Plack, 2005, J Allied Health, 34, 199
  2. Kerka, 1996, ERIC Dig, 174, 1
  3. Wald, 2008, Family Med, 40, 244

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 174

Related

Metadata

Authors
Wald, H. S., Davis, S. W., Reis, S. P., Monroe, A. D., & Borkan, J. M.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Wald, Hedy S.
ORCID
Venue
Academic Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2009-07
Volume
84
Issue
7
Pages
830-837
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/acm.0b013e3181a8592f
OpenAlex
W2064251880
Cited by
174
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 16
FWCI
13.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Brown University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
reflective practice, reflective writing, field notes, instructor feedback, medical curriculum, clinical skills training, teacher professionalism, preclinical medical students, small group learning, affective domain, critical thinking, student assessment, curriculum evaluation
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Behavioral Medicine, Clinical Competence, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Faculty, Medical, Feedback, Humans, Physician's Role, Thinking, United States, Writing, Interdisciplinary Communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review