Optimizing feedback reception: a scoping review of skills and strategies for medical learners

Jennifer Rowe; Diane Bouchard Lamothe; Teagan Haggerty; Jake Engel; Cole Etherington; Manvinder Kaur; Etienne Vincent; Nibras Ghanmi; Preet Gujral; Valentina Ly; Sylvain Boet

doi:10.36834/cmej.79722

Auteurs-es

Jennifer Rowe University of ottawa
Diane Bouchard Lamothe University of Ottawa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3721-0621
Teagan Haggerty The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5776-077X
Jake Engel University of Ottawa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5045-361X
Cole Etherington The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
Manvinder Kaur The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
Etienne Vincent University of Ottawa https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7933-0300
Nibras Ghanmi University of Ottawa
Preet Gujral The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
Valentina Ly University of Ottawa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3014-4342
Sylvain Boet The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1679-818X

DOI :

https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.79722

Résumé

Contexte : La rétroaction demeure essentielle au développement professionnel des apprenants. La majorité des publications sur la rétroaction se concentrent sur sa fourniture, et il existe un manque de données probantes pour soutenir les apprenants dans le développement de compétences permettant de recevoir, évaluer et utiliser la rétroaction, indépendamment du contexte. Cette revue exploratoire a cartographié la littérature portant sur les stratégies et compétences qui optimisent la réception de la rétroaction chez les apprenants en médecine.

Méthodes : Les chercheurs ont effectué des recherches dans MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, APA PsycINFO et Web of Science Core Collection depuis l’origine jusqu’à mai 2023. Les critères d’inclusion des études comprenaient des sources de données primaires et des stratégies ou compétences visant à améliorer la réception de la rétroaction chez les apprenants en médecine. Les données ont été examinées et extraites par paires d’évaluateurs indépendants. Les chercheurs ont résumé les caractéristiques des études, les résultats, les méthodes pédagogiques et les interventions.

Résultats : Sur un total de 7692 études, six ont identifié des stratégies et des compétences pour améliorer la réception de la rétroaction. La formation était principalement dispensée sous forme d’ateliers (n = 5 études) proposant des activités d’apprentissage cognitives, réflexives et expérientielles, toutes rapportant une amélioration perçue par les apprenants de leurs comportements liés à la rétroaction. Neuf stratégies et sept outils ont été recensés, portant sur l’approche générale, la sollicitation ou l’évaluation de la rétroaction.

Conclusion : Les six études incluses décrivent neuf stratégies et sept compétences pour optimiser la réception de la rétroaction chez les apprenants, en mettant l’accent sur l’approche générale et les comportements proactifs, sans évaluation pratique des stratégies ou compétences. Des concepts clés et des lacunes dans la littérature ont été identifiés, pouvant orienter de futures recherches pour améliorer la réception de la rétroaction par les apprenants.

Références

Archer JC. State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):101‑8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03546.x.

Bing-You R, Varaklis K, Hayes V, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvy D. The feedback tango: an integrative review and analysis of the content of the teacher–learner feedback exchange. Acad Med. Apr 2018;93(4):657‑63. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001927.

Sargeant J, Mcnaughton E, Mercer S, Murphy D, Sullivan P, Bruce DA. Providing feedback: exploring a model (emotion, content, outcomes) for facilitating multisource feedback. Med Teach. Sept 2011;33(9):744‑9. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.577287.

Van De Ridder JMM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, Ten Cate OTJ. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ. 2008;42(2):189‑97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02973.x.

Carless D, Boud D. The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assess Eval High Educ. Nov 17;2018;43(8):1315‑25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.

Natesan S, Stehman C, Shaw R, Story D, Krzyzaniak SM, Gottlieb M. Curated collections for educators: five key papers about receiving feedback in medical education. Cureus. 11(9). Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6825441/ [Accessed on Jan 9, 2021].

Telio S, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. The “Educational Alliance” as a framework for reconceptualizing feedback in medical education.: Acad Med. May 2015;90(5):609‑14. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000560.

ten Cate OThJ. Why receiving feedback collides with self determination. Adv Health Sci Educ. Oct 1 2013;18(4):845‑9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9401-0.

Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. BMJ. Nov 10, 2008;337(nov10 2):a1961‑a1961. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1961.

Kornegay JG, Kraut A, Manthey D, et al. Feedback in medical education: a critical appraisal. AEM Educ Train. 2017;1(2):98‑109. https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10024.

Boud D, Molloy E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ. Sept 2013;38(6):698‑712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.

Watling CJ, Ginsburg S. Assessment, feedback and the alchemy of learning. Med Educ. Jan 2019;53(1):76‑85. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13645.

Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. Aug 12, 1983;250(6):777. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1983.03340060055026.

Sargeant J, Lockyer J, Mann K, et al. Facilitated reflective performance feedback: developing an evidence- and theory-based model that builds relationship, explores reactions and content, and coaches for performance change (R2C2). Acad Med. Dec 2015;90(12):1698‑706. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000809.

Algiraigri AH. Ten tips for receiving feedback effectively in clinical practice. Med Educ Online. Jan 1, 2014;19(1):25141. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v19.25141

Davies K, Guckian J. How to ask for and act on feedback: practical tips for medical students. MedEdPublish. Mar 13, 2018;7. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2018.0000063.1.

Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters E. “Scoping the scope” of a Cochrane review. J Public Health. Mar 1, 2011;33(1):147‑50. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdr015.

Heen S, OverDrive I. Thanks for the feedback. S.I.: Penguin Publishing Group; 2014. Available from https://api.overdrive.com/v1/collections/v1L1BmUAAAA2X/products/3d027182-1dff-447a-9b43-74e107dac5df [Accessed on Jan, 9, 2021]

Ramani S, Könings KD, Ginsburg S, van der Vleuten CPM. Twelve tips to promote a feedback culture with a growth mind-set: swinging the feedback pendulum from recipes to relationships. Med Teach. Jun 3, 2019;41(6):625‑31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1432850.

Giroux M, Girard G. Favoriser la position d’apprentissage grâce à l’interaction superviseur-supervisé. Pédagogie Médicale. Aug 1, 2009;10(3):193‑210. https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/20099991.

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci IS. Sept 20, 2010;5:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.

Rumrill PD, Fitzgerald SM, Merchant WR. Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Work. Mar 2010 ;35(3):399‑404. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2010-0998.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. Oct 2, 2018;169(7):467. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. Feb 1, 2005;8(1):19‑32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. Jul 2016;75:40‑6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021.

Distiller-SR. 2023. Available from: https://www.distillersr.com/

Johnson NR, Pelletier A, Royce C, et al. Feedback focused: a learner- and teacher-centered curriculum to improve the feedback exchange in the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. MedEdPORTAL. Mar 25,2021;11127. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11127.

Yau BN, Chen AS, Ownby AR, Hsieh P, Ford CD. Soliciting feedback on the wards: a peer‐to‐peer workshop. Clin Teach. Jun 2020;17(3):280‑5. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13069.

McGinness HT, Caldwell PHY, Gunasekera H, Scott KM. An educational intervention to increase student engagement in feedback. Med Teach. Nov 1, 2020;42(11):1289‑97. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1804055.

Milan FB, Dyche L, Fletcher J. “How am I doing?” Teaching medical students to elicit feedback during their clerkships. Med Teach. Nov 2011;33(11):904‑10. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.588732.

Matthews A, Hall M, Parra JM, et al. Receiving real-time clinical feedback: a workshop and OSTE assessment for medical students. Adv Med Educ Pract. Nov 2020; Volume 11:861‑7. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S271623.

Bing-You RG, Bertsch T, Thompson JA. Coaching medical students in receiving effective feedback. Teach Learn Med. Oct 1998;10(4):228‑31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1004_6.

Noble C, Sly C, Collier L, Armit L, Hilder J, Molloy E. Enhancing feedback literacy in the workplace: a learner-centred approach. In: Billett S, Newton J, Rogers G, Noble C, editors. Augmenting health and social care students’ clinical learning experiences: outcomes and processes. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019; p. 283‑306. (Professional and Practice-based Learning). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05560-8_13.

Ajjawi R, Bearman M, Sheldrake M, et al. The influence of psychological safety on feedback conversations in general practice training. Med Educ. 2022;56(11):1096‑104. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14881.

Ajjawi R, Molloy E, Bearman M, Rees CE. Contextual influences on feedback practices: an ecological perspective. In: Carless D, Bridges SM, Chan CKY, Glofcheski R, editors. Scaling up Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. Singapore: Springer; 2017; p. 129‑43. (The Enabling Power of Assessment). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3045-1_9.

Molloy E, Boud D, Henderson M. Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assess Eval High Educ. May 18, 2020;45(4):527‑40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955.

Dweck C, Walton G, Cohen GL. Academic tenacity: mindsets and skills that promote long-term learning. 2014.

Thomas PA, Kern D, Hughes MT, Chen BY. Curriculum development for medical education: a six-step approach. curriculum development for medical education: a six-step approach, Third Edition. 2015. 1 p.

Sweet LR, Palazzi DL. Application of Kern’s six-step approach to curriculum development by global health residents. Educ Health Abingdon Engl. 2015;28(2):138‑41. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.170124.

Kern D, Thomas P, Hughes M. Curriculum development for medical education: a six‑step approach. 2nd ed. The John’s Hopkins University Press; 2009.

Moroz A, Horlick M, Mandalaywala N, T Stern D. Faculty feedback that begins with resident self-assessment: motivation is the key to success. Med Educ. 2018; 52(3):314‑23. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13484.

Kuang SY, Kamel-ElSayed S, Pitts D. how to receive criticism: theory and practice from cognitive and cultural approaches. Med Sci Educ. Dec 1, 2019;29(4):1109‑15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00808-z.

Bouchard-Lamothe D, Rowe J, Boet S, Denis-LeBlanc M. S’outiller pour mieux participer à la rétroaction : Un nouveau modèle cognitivo-comportemental destiné aux apprenants en médecine. Can Med Educ J. Oct 31, 2022. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.74419.

Buckley C, Natesan S, Breslin A, Gottlieb M. Finessing feedback: recommendations for effective feedback in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. Mar 1,2020;75(3):445‑51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.05.016.

Schwartzman L. On the nature of student defensiveness: theory and feedback from a software design course. In: Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on Computing education research workshop. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2009.p. 81‑92. (ICER ’09). https://doi.org/10.1145/1584322.1584333.

Segal S. The Existential conditions of explicitness: an Heideggerian perspective. Stud Contin Educ. May 1;21(1):73‑89. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037990210105.

Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp Educ Psychol. Apr 2020;61:101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860.