Cited by 345Reflective Practices in EducationInnovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The structure of reflective practice in medicine

Mamede, Silvia, Schmidt, Henk G·2004·Medical Education

Abstract

Background The capability to reflect consciously upon one's professional practice is generally considered important for the development of expertise and, hence, for education. However, to our knowledge no empirical research has been conducted to date into the nature of reflective practice in medicine. Purpose To study the structure of reflective practice in medicine. Methods A questionnaire based on the literature was developed and administered to a group of primary care doctors. The data were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis using structural equations modelling. Results A 5‐factor model of reflective practice emerged. It consisted of the following factors: deliberate induction; deliberate deduction; testing and synthesising; openness for reflection, and meta‐reasoning. The model fitted the data sufficiently. Conclusion A multidimensional structure of reflective practice in medicine was brought to light by the study. Its components in terms of reasoning processes, behaviours and attitudes were identified and measured among doctors. Once conceptualised and measured, reflective practice can be studied to gain a better understanding of its relation to expertise development in medicine. In addition, training students to apply reflective practices may become a goal in medical education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01917.x

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Methods such as reflective medical practice and debiasing through feedback can help reduce the number of cognitive errors.

    “methods such as reflective medical practice36, which help clinicians enhance their ability to navigate complex cases37, or debiasing through feedback to identify and correct cognitive biases38 can help in reducing the number of cognitive errors.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mamede, S., & Schmidt, H. G.
Affiliations
Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Schmidt, Henk G
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-09-15
Volume
38
Issue
12
Pages
1302-1308
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2158002939
Cited by
345
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 19
FWCI
46.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
reflective practice, medical expertise, primary care physicians, meta-reasoning, Big Five personality traits, professional reasoning
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Continuing, Family Practice, Humans, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Thinking

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