This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background: In the last decade, reflexivity has emerged as a key concept in family medicine, as evidenced by its increasing integration in competency statements and frameworks in the field. However, the concept of reflexivity is inconsistent and ill-defined in medical education literature, with variable purposes and associated processes, which is an important barrier to learning and implementing reflective practices. This project built on the results of a rapid review to develop an educational tool supporting the learning and teaching of reflexivity in family medicine. Methods: We conducted a rapid review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed studies relating to reflexivity in family medicine between May 2007 to May 2017 in PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, CINHAL, ERIC and Education Source. Two reviewers independently identified, selected and reviewed studies. Results of the review were used to frame the content of the tool. Results: Our research strategy initially identified 810 studies, from which 65 studies were retained for analysis. The different conceptions of reflexivity encountered in the included studies were analyzed using thematic analysis. Four conceptions of reflexivity (i.e. clinical, professional, relational and social reflexivity), with related definitions, goals and processes were identified in the included studies and were used as a basis to develop the Reflexivi-Tool. Conclusion: There is a need to provide clear guidelines regarding the purpose and process of reflexivity, as well as better equipping mentors so they can better facilitate these kinds of skills. Based on a rapid review, this study has allowed the development of a tool that presents and clarifies four main types of reflexivity for medical practice in a concise and user-friendly way. Tools such as Reflexivi-Tool are crucial to support reflective processes that target different dimensions of professionalism.

Despite the persistent dominance of a \'scientific psychology\' paradigm in health psychology, the use of qualitative research continues to grow. Qualitative approaches are often based on fundamentally different values from (post)positivistempiricism, raising important considerations for quality, and whether qualitative work adheres to, and is judged by, appropriate publication standards. Thematic analysis (TA) has become a particularly popular method in qualitative health psychology, but poor practice is widespread. To support high quality, methodologically coherent TA practice and reporting, we critically reviewed 100 systematically selected papers reporting TA, published in five prominent health psychology journals. Our review assessed reported practice, and considered this in relation to methodological and quality recommendations. We identified 10 common areas of problematic practice in the reviewed papers, the majority citing reflexive TA. Considering the role of three \'arbiters of quality\' in a peer review publication system - authors, reviewers, and editors - we developed 20 recommendations for authors, to support them in conducting and reporting high quality TA research, with associated questions for reviewers and editors to consider when evaluating TA manuscripts for publication. We end with considerations for facilitating better qualitative research, and enriching the understandings and knowledge base from which health psychology is practiced.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) leads to better health care processes through collaboration between health care professionals and patients. Training is recognized as a promising intervention to foster SDM by health care professionals. However, the most effective training type is still unclear. Reflexivity is an exercise that leads health care professionals to question their own values to better consider patient values and support patients while least influencing their decisions. Training that uses reflexivity strategies could motivate them to engage in SDM and be more open to diversity.
OBJECTIVE: In this secondary analysis of a 2018 Cochrane review of interventions for improving SDM by health care professionals, we aimed to identify SDM training programs that included reflexivity strategies and were assessed as effective. In addition, we aimed to explore whether further factors can be associated with or enhance their effectiveness.
METHODS: From the Cochrane review, we first extracted training programs targeting health care professionals. Second, we developed a grid to help identify training programs that used reflexivity strategies. Third, those identified were further categorized according to the type of strategy used. At each step, we identified the proportion of programs that were classified as effective by the Cochrane review (2018) so that we could compare their effectiveness. In addition, we wanted to see whether effectiveness was similar between programs using peer-to-peer group learning and those with an interprofessional orientation. Finally, the Cochrane review selected programs that were evaluated using patient-reported or observer-reported outcome measurements. We examined which of these measurements was most often used in effective training programs.
RESULTS: Of the 31 training programs extracted, 24 (77%) were interactive, among which 10 (42%) were considered effective. Of these 31 programs, 7 (23%) were unidirectional, among which 1 (14%) was considered effective. Of the 24 interactive programs, 7 (29%) included reflexivity strategies. Of the 7 training programs with reflexivity strategies, 5 (71%) used a peer-to-peer group learning strategy, among which 3 (60%) were effective; the other 2 (29%) used a self-appraisal individual learning strategy, neither of which was effective. Of the 31 training programs extracted, 5 (16%) programs had an interprofessional orientation, among which 3 (60%) were effective; the remaining 26 (84%) of the 31 programs were without interprofessional orientation, among which 8 (31%) were effective. Finally, 12 (39%) of 31 programs used observer-based measurements, among which more than half (7/12, 58%) were effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to evaluate the effectiveness of SDM training programs that include reflexivity strategies. Its conclusions open avenues for enriching future SDM training programs with reflexivity strategies. The grid developed to identify training programs that used reflexivity strategies, when further tested and validated, can guide future assessments of reflexivity components in SDM training.

UNASSIGNED: Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or their equivalent review applications for prospective research with human participants. Reviewers use universally agreed principlesi to make decisions about whether prospective health and social care research is ethical. Close attention to understanding how reviewers go about their decision-making work and consider principles in practice is limited.
UNASSIGNED: The study aimed to understand how reviewers made decisions in the contexts of meetings and to understand more about how reviewers approach their work. The purpose of this article is to draw on data and findings and to show how reflective equilibrium as a theoretical frame can (1) deepen understanding of ethics review and (2) permit a reflexive examination of the habitual processes of review.
UNASSIGNED: Methods captured the day-to-day work of the RECs. Seventeen applications were heard during eight observations. There were 12 formal interviews with reviewers (n = 12) and with researchers (n = 8) which are not reported on in this article.
UNASSIGNED: Organisational permission for the study was given by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) whose functions became part of the Health Research Authority (HRA) during the study. The study was given favourable opinion by the University of Salford\'s REC (Reference HSCR11/17).
UNASSIGNED: Data were analysed using constructed grounded theory resulting in eight themes which revealed attention to procedure and engagement with applications. Reflective equilibrium was used as a qualitative frame to interpret themes distilling them into three processes at work in review: emotion and intuition; imagination and creative thinking; and intuition and trust.
UNASSIGNED: Reviewers went back and forth between universal principles and considered these in the contexts of each application using the above processes.
UNASSIGNED: Reflective equilibrium offers a coherent and grounded account of review work. Reflexivity in training for reviewers is essential for improving practices. The challenges reflexivity presents can be assisted by using reflective equilibrium as a tool to illuminate tacit review processes.

Teamwork and communication are recognised as key contributors to safe and high-quality patient care. Interventions targeting process and relational aspects of care may therefore provide patient safety solutions that reflect the complex nature of healthcare. Team reflexivity is one such approach with the potential to support improvements in communication and teamwork, where reflexivity is defined as the ability to pay critical attention to individual and team practices with reference to social and contextual information.
To systematically review articles that describe the use of team reflexivity in interprofessional hospital-based healthcare teams.
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, six electronic databases were searched to identify literature investigating the use of team reflexivity in interprofessional hospital-based healthcare teams.The review includes articles investigating the use of team reflexivity to improve teamwork and communication in any naturally occurring hospital-based healthcare teams. Articles\' eligibility was validated by two second reviewers (5%).
Fifteen empirical articles were included in the review. Simulation training and video-reflexive ethnography (VRE) were the most commonly used forms of team reflexivity. Included articles focused on the use of reflexive interventions to improve teamwork and communication within interprofessional healthcare teams. Communication during interprofessional teamworking was the most prominent focus of improvement methods. The nature of this review only allows assessment of team reflexivity as an activity embedded within specific methods. Poorly defined methodological information relating to reflexivity in the reviewed studies made it difficult to draw conclusive evidence about the impact of reflexivity alone.
The reviewed literature suggests that VRE is well placed to provide more locally appropriate solutions to contributory patient safety factors, ranging from individual and social learning to improvements in practices and systems.
CRD42017055602.

Many health researchers are clinicians. Dual-role experiences are common for clinician-researchers in research involving patient-participants, even if not their own patients. To extend the existing body of literature on why dual-role is experienced, we aimed to develop a typology of common catalysts for dual-role experiences to help clinician-researchers plan and implement methodologically and ethically sound research.
Systematic searching of Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus (inception to 28.07.2014) for primary studies or first-person reflexive reports of clinician-researchers\' dual-role experiences, supplemented by reference list checking and Google Scholar scoping searches. Included articles were loaded in NVivo for analysis. The coding was focused on how dual-role was evidenced for the clinician-researchers in research involving patients. Procedures were completed by one researcher (MB) and independently cross-checked by another (JHS). All authors contributed to extensive discussions to resolve all disagreements about initial coding and verify the final themes.
Database searching located 7135 records, resulting in 29 included studies, with the addition of 7 studies through reference checks and scoping searches. Two overarching themes described the most common catalysts for dual-role experiences - ways a research role can involve patterns of behaviour typical of a clinical role, and the developing connection that starts to resemble a clinician-patient relationship. Five subthemes encapsulated the clinical patterns commonly repeated in research settings (clinical queries, perceived agenda, helping hands, uninvited clinical expert, and research or therapy) and five subthemes described concerns about the researcher-participant relationship (clinical assumptions, suspicion and holding back, revelations, over-identification, and manipulation). Clinician-researchers use their clinical skills in health research in ways that set up a relationship resembling that of clinician-patient. Clinicians\' ingrained orientation to patients\' needs can be in tension with their research role, and can set up ethical and methodological challenges.
The typology we developed outlines the common ways dual-role is experienced in research involving clinician-researchers and patient-participants, and perhaps the inevitability of the experience given the primacy accorded to patient well-being. The typology offers clinician-researchers a framework for grappling with the ethical and methodological implications of dual-role throughout the research process, including planning, implementation, monitoring and reporting.

During pandemics, health authorities may be uncertain about the spread and severity of the disease and the effectiveness and safety of available interventions. This was the case during the swine flu (H1N1) pandemic of 2009-2010, and governments were forced to make decisions despite these uncertainties. While many countries chose to implement wide scale vaccination programmes, few accomplished their vaccination goals. Many research studies aiming to explore barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake have been conducted in the aftermath of the pandemic, including several qualitative studies.
1. To explore public attitudes to the swine flu vaccine in different countries through a review of qualitative primary studies. 2. To describe and discuss the implications drawn by the primary study authors.
Systematic review of qualitative research studies, using a broadly comparative cross case-study approach. Study quality was appraised using an adaptation of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) quality assessment tool.
The review indicates that the public had varying opinions about disease risk and prevalence and had concerns about vaccine safety. Most primary study authors concluded that participants were uninformed, and that more information about the disease and the vaccine would have led to an increase in vaccine uptake. We find these conclusions problematic. We suggest instead that people\'s questions and concerns were legitimate given the uncertainties of the situation at the time and the fact that the authorities did not have the necessary information to convince the public. Our quality assessment of the included studies points to a lack of reflexivity and a lack of information about study context. We suggest that these study weaknesses are tied to primary study authors\' lack of acknowledgement of the uncertainties surrounding the disease and the vaccine.
While primary study authors suggest that authorities could increase vaccine uptake through increased information, we suggest instead that health authorities should be more transparent in their information and decision-making processes in future pandemic situations.

Team reflexivity posits that the extent to which teams reflect upon and adapt their functioning is positively related to team performance. While remarkable progress has been made to provide evidence of this relationship, the underlying framework is missing elements of current theoretical streams for analyzing and describing teamwork, leaving the diversity of effects of team reflexivity often untouched. In this article, we present an update for this framework, by reviewing previous research on reflexivity, addressing gaps in the literature, and revising the original model by integrating feedback and dynamic team effectiveness frameworks for describing temporal developments of reflexivity. We furthermore propose a new dimensional structure for reflexivity, relying on prior work conceptualizing teams as information-processing systems that learn and advance through social-cognitive elements. Our model is therefore not only suitable for explaining the diverse set of relationships between team reflexivity on outcomes, but also provides valuable directions for viewing reflexivity as process that takes place during both transition and action phases of teamwork. We conclude with implications for managers, identify limitations, and propose an agenda for further research into this area. This article contributes an extended perspective relevant for further theory development and for effectively managing reflexivity in teams.