Reflection‐in‐practice: A survey of Australian occupational therapists

• Published in: Australian occupational therapy journal 2019-06, Vol.66 (3), p.337-346
• Main Author: Knightbridge, Lisa
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Clinical decision making; Clinical practice guidelines; Clinical standards; Deviation; Occupational therapists; Occupational therapy; Occupational therapy research; Polls & surveys; professional competence; Professional practice; Professionalism; Reflection; Reflective practice; Therapists; Workplaces
• ISSN: 0045-0766; 1440-1630
• DOI: 10.1111/1440-1630.12559

Introduction The ability to reflect on practice and context is an essential professional behaviour required by occupational therapists and included within practice guidelines and standards. Research has demonstrated the benefits of reflection within specialist areas of practice. However, there is a lack of research into reflection within, and across, work place practice. The aim of this study was to understand how occupational therapists define, conceptualise and engage in reflection in practice. Methods Occupational therapists (N = 112) participated in a cross sectional study, which utilised a self‐administered, purpose designed survey distributed via the Occupational Therapy Australia (OTA), e‐bulletin. Data were summarised using frequency and percentage distributions, mean and standard deviation, and Pearson's r correlation coefficients was used to measure relationships between variables. Results There was a high level of interest and engagement in self‐reflection, and a positive relationship between ‘years since graduation’ and ‘level of engagement in self‐reflection’. Respondents strongly agreed that the purpose of reflection was to learn from experiences and that it was key to being a self‐directed learner. They disagreed that its purpose was ‘to describe and record my new learning’ and that ‘reflective practice is no different to clinical reasoning’. The highest ranked barrier was workplace demands, and participant knowledge of reflection theories was low. Conclusions These participants were interested in and valued reflection‐in‐practice; however, workplace demands on time may explain low engagement in reflective journaling. Participants indicated low knowledge of reflection theories, and they identified this as a barrier. Their purposes for engaging in reflection were generally consistent with the professional standards pertaining to reflection. In the preferred definition, reflection was associated with contextual and systemic factors, concepts central to an occupational justice perspective. The findings of this study will contribute to developing an expansive understanding of reflection applicable to occupational therapy professional practice.