A rapid review of critical theory in health professions education.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
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education) and exclusion (gray literature, not written in English, not critical theory, not education setting, not peer reviewed) criteria.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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信