50 Chapter 3 Table 3: Questionnaire group scores over time. Week 1-10; n=209 Week 11-20; n=190 Mean (SD) Percentage top score (SD) Mean (SD) Percentage top score (SD) Mean score independent t-test value; p-value Top score independent t-test value; p-value CollaboRATE 9.67 (2.66) 56% (50%) ᶧ 9.98 (2.49) 63% (49%) ᶧ -1.19; p=.23 -1.01; p=.31 Net Promotor Score 3.30 (0.99) 40% (49%) * 3.47 (0.84) 45% (50%) * -1.86; p=.06 -1.45; p=.15 *) percentage of CollaboRATE top scores, which means 12/12 ᶧ) percentage of Net Promotor top scores, which means 4/4 The reflexivity framework The continuous loop of the reflexivity framework represents a person’s reflexive process. [16] The first element from within the loop depicts the dominant forces within a social space: who holds the ‘power’ to determine one’s actions. The loop continues with investigating one’s ‘values & identity’, and where these stem. A gradually growing self-awareness in this reflexive process leads to an increased sense of ‘agency & responsibility’ for one’s own actions, the next element in the loop. This should then be followed by the fourth element, ‘performance,’ where one puts the desirable acts into practice. The center of the loop depicts the ‘dialogical space;’ this is an often-facilitated space that encourages interaction with others and where reflexivity is effectuated. [16] Ethical considerations This study was approved by the regional research ethics board (File number CMO: 2019-5389). Informed consent for interviews and for the use of patient feedback was received and recorded for all participating residents. Residents were given identity codes. Patient data were handled anonymously, and patients consented to the use of their feedback for research goals. Results: Of the twelve residents eligible for inclusion in this study, eleven eventually participated. One resident was excluded from analysis, because this resident did not perform any outpatient consultations during the study period. Two participating residents were male. Questionnaire results In total, 1651 valid questionnaire invitations were sent out to 1174 unique email addresses. Two percent of the eligible patients had no known email address. Some patients received multiple invitations, as they visited the department various times during the study period.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw