Kyle T Fassett, Alicia Sellon, Elizabeth A Gazza, Sophia Mortha, Jacqueline E McLaughlin
{"title":"A rapid review of critical theory in health professions education.","authors":"Kyle T Fassett, Alicia Sellon, Elizabeth A Gazza, Sophia Mortha, Jacqueline E McLaughlin","doi":"10.1186/s12909-025-06979-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Critical theories, such as Critical Race Theory, are a group of theories developed to explicate structural, historical, and social issues that perpetuate inequities and might inform institutional efforts. This study reviewed critical theory use in health professions education with the primary objectives of understanding how and to what extent these theories have been applied.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A rapid review was performed in October 2021 with four electronic databases. Scholarship was screened with Covidence based on inclusion (critical theory and health professions education) and exclusion (gray literature, not written in English, not critical theory, not education setting, not peer reviewed) criteria. Data were extracted, charted, and analyzed by three reviewers through Excel, with findings reviewed by the entire research team.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 154 pieces of scholarship were included. Most scholarship emerged between 2010 and 2019 (n = 69, 44.8%) and nursing (n = 93, 54.4%) was most represented. Scholars were most frequently from the United States (n = 62, 35.6%), used theoretical methodologies (n = 84, 50.3%), and leveraged Critical & Critical Social Theory (n = 67, 30.7%). In scholarship with major theory use (n = 52, 33.8%), scholars also most commonly used Critical Theory & Critical Social Theory (n = 25, 34.2%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review exposed gaps in the use of critical theory in health professions education. Scholars should consider expanding the application of critical theories, additional research methodologies, and aspects of education that were largely absent. Expanding critical theory to further explicate aspects of training programs and institutions could deepen our understanding of the mechanisms impacting student development and success in health professions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"423"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11929213/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06979-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Critical theories, such as Critical Race Theory, are a group of theories developed to explicate structural, historical, and social issues that perpetuate inequities and might inform institutional efforts. This study reviewed critical theory use in health professions education with the primary objectives of understanding how and to what extent these theories have been applied.
Methods: A rapid review was performed in October 2021 with four electronic databases. Scholarship was screened with Covidence based on inclusion (critical theory and health professions education) and exclusion (gray literature, not written in English, not critical theory, not education setting, not peer reviewed) criteria. Data were extracted, charted, and analyzed by three reviewers through Excel, with findings reviewed by the entire research team.
Results: A total of 154 pieces of scholarship were included. Most scholarship emerged between 2010 and 2019 (n = 69, 44.8%) and nursing (n = 93, 54.4%) was most represented. Scholars were most frequently from the United States (n = 62, 35.6%), used theoretical methodologies (n = 84, 50.3%), and leveraged Critical & Critical Social Theory (n = 67, 30.7%). In scholarship with major theory use (n = 52, 33.8%), scholars also most commonly used Critical Theory & Critical Social Theory (n = 25, 34.2%).
Conclusions: This review exposed gaps in the use of critical theory in health professions education. Scholars should consider expanding the application of critical theories, additional research methodologies, and aspects of education that were largely absent. Expanding critical theory to further explicate aspects of training programs and institutions could deepen our understanding of the mechanisms impacting student development and success in health professions.
期刊介绍:
BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.