Centre de Documentation Campus Montignies
Horaires :
Lundi : 8h-18h30
Mardi : 8h-18h30
Mercredi 9h-16h30
Jeudi : 8h-18h30
Vendredi : 8h-16h30
Votre centre de documentation fermera de 12h30 à 13h ce vendredi 28 juin et fermera à 14h30.
Dès ce lundi 1er juillet jusqu'au mercredi 10 juillet l'horaire du centre de documentation sera adapté :
Lundi 1er juillet : de 8h à 12h et de 12h30 à 16h
Mardi 2 juillet : de 8h à 12h15
Mercredi 3 juillet : de 9h à 12h et de 12h30 à 15h15
Jeudi 4 juillet : de 8h à 12h30 et de 13h à 18h30
Lundi 8 juillet : de 8h à 12h et de 12h30 à 16h
Mardi 9 juillet : de 8h à 12h15
Réouverture dès ce lundi 19 août.
Bienvenue sur le catalogue du centre de documentation du campus de Montignies.
[article]
Titre : |
A systematic review of professional reasoning literature in occupational therapy |
Type de document : |
texte imprimé |
Auteurs : |
Carolyn Unsworth ; Anne Baker |
Année de publication : |
2016 |
Article en page(s) : |
p.5-16 |
Langues : |
Anglais (eng) |
Mots-clés : |
clinical reasoning novice-expert differences professional reasoning |
Résumé : |
Introduction Over the past 33 years, theoretical and empirical articles have been published on professional reasoning in occupational therapy. This systematic review sought to answer two questions: (1) What is the nature and volume of professional reasoning literature; and (2) What do we know about the development of professional reasoning in students through literature exploring novice and expert differences?
Method A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature with narrative and critical analysis.
Findings A total of 140 articles were classified into six topic areas: what is professional reasoning, ethics and moral reasoning?, methods of studying professional reasoning, novice–expert differences, professional reasoning of assistants, and advancing specific fields of practice using professional reasoning. Of these, 68% included analysis of data, and the remainder were discussions. Fourteen articles examining novice–expert differences were critiqued but only eight were rated as strong. Research findings prompt the need for reflection, extended fieldwork, and development of protocols to facilitate reasoning.
Conclusion This is the first systematic review of the professional reasoning literature, and provides a foundation for more detailed critiques of specific topics to be undertaken. While research strengths have been identified, gaps include the use of standardised measures of professional reasoning and identification of educational approaches that promote professional reasoning.
|
Permalink : |
./index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=42367 |
in The British Journal of Occupational Therapy > Vol.79 N°1 (January 2016) . - p.5-16
[article] A systematic review of professional reasoning literature in occupational therapy [texte imprimé] / Carolyn Unsworth ; Anne Baker . - 2016 . - p.5-16. Langues : Anglais ( eng) in The British Journal of Occupational Therapy > Vol.79 N°1 (January 2016) . - p.5-16
Mots-clés : |
clinical reasoning novice-expert differences professional reasoning |
Résumé : |
Introduction Over the past 33 years, theoretical and empirical articles have been published on professional reasoning in occupational therapy. This systematic review sought to answer two questions: (1) What is the nature and volume of professional reasoning literature; and (2) What do we know about the development of professional reasoning in students through literature exploring novice and expert differences?
Method A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature with narrative and critical analysis.
Findings A total of 140 articles were classified into six topic areas: what is professional reasoning, ethics and moral reasoning?, methods of studying professional reasoning, novice–expert differences, professional reasoning of assistants, and advancing specific fields of practice using professional reasoning. Of these, 68% included analysis of data, and the remainder were discussions. Fourteen articles examining novice–expert differences were critiqued but only eight were rated as strong. Research findings prompt the need for reflection, extended fieldwork, and development of protocols to facilitate reasoning.
Conclusion This is the first systematic review of the professional reasoning literature, and provides a foundation for more detailed critiques of specific topics to be undertaken. While research strengths have been identified, gaps include the use of standardised measures of professional reasoning and identification of educational approaches that promote professional reasoning.
|
Permalink : |
./index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=42367 |
| ![A systematic review of professional reasoning literature in occupational therapy vignette](./getimage.php?url_image=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-eu.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F%21%21isbn%21%21.08.MZZZZZZZ.jpg¬icecode=&vigurl=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.sagepub.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fupm-binaries%2Fstyles%2Fsage_thumbnail_width_150px%2Ffeed%2F110126_spbjo_83_3_72ppiRGB_150pixw.jpg) |
Exemplaires (2)
|
Revue | Revue | Centre de Documentation HELHa Campus Montignies | Armoires à volets | Document exclu du prêt - à consulter sur place Exclu du prêt |
Revue | Revue | Centre de Documentation HELHa Campus Montignies | Armoires à volets | Document exclu du prêt - à consulter sur place Exclu du prêt |