MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2254332956 · doi:10.3138/ptc.2014-48-cc

Clinician's Commentary on Chan et al.

2015· letter· en· W2254332956 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jacqueline Schleifer Taylor

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhysiotherapy Canada · 2015
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConstruct (python library)PsychologyHealth careNeuroleadershipTransactional leadershipHealth professionalsLeadership styleShared leadershipPublic relationsSociologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Although objective measures of leadership may not exist, and leadership can be defined in many different ways, it is a construct that we understand intuitively when we see it, experience it, and are affected by it.Yet leadership in health care, and the qualities and attributes of leadership that enable people to support health system advancement, remains an elusive notion.The literature is replete with leadership theories, models, and approaches from different health disciplines aimed at identifying those attributes that can be learned, adopted, and promoted.Chan and colleagues 1 acknowledge the benefits of leadership exploration for professionals, patients/clients, and the health system as a whole; their study is a first exploration of the personal strengths of Canadian physical therapists in leadership positions.Another recent article on leadership in physical therapy argues that the ongoing need for health system change and improvement requires all health professionals to engage in leadership, whether or not they naturally identify as leaders. 2 Other authors 3,4 have also suggested that clinicians are in an ideal position to serve in leadership relationships within networks of peers, within organizations, with patients or clients, and within the broader health system.Shared or collective leadership has also been identified as a necessary strategy for health system change.[5][6][7][8][9] All these perspectives affirm how important it is for physical therapy, as a profession, to better understand the strengths we bring to the agenda of health system leadership.Particularly worthy of further discussion, in my view, is Chan and colleagues' finding that the leadership strengths of leaders and non-leaders in their sample of Canadian physical therapists overlap.Indeed, leaders do not always hold formal leadership roles, and certainly those in formal leadership roles are not always leaders; thus, this finding may simply reflect the foundational strengths that are characteristic of physical therapists in general, as well as those attributes that are carried forward in different leadership domains, both formal and informal.The substantial overlap in the leadership strengths of physiotherapy leaders and non-leaders may also suggest that most physical therapists possess the ability to lead.Chan and colleagues have opened the door to a long-overdue dialogue within our profession.Perhaps this dialogue should now evolve from identifying leadership strengths to acting on what we have always intuited to be true: that physical therapists are leaders.In the end, whether leaders are born or made, it would appear that those admitted to physiotherapy programmes seem predisposed to leadership.So perhaps the question now is, how will we augment those leadership strengths through entryto-practice and continuing professional development?The ''harmony'' and ''relator'' strengths identified among the non-leader physical therapists in Chan and colleagues' sample 1 align well with the model of servant leadership described by Trastek and colleagues, who cite the leadership focus as ''serving the highest needs of others'' toward their goals.3(p.379)There is tremendous merit in the ''harmony'' and ''relator'' strengths, which arguably fall within the identified qualities and characteristics of servant leadership consistent with empathy, healing, and awareness.3 McGowan and Stokes 2 call for future research investigating the leadership styles used by physical therapists,

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,079
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,068

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,044
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,005
Communication savante0,0050,006
Science ouverte0,0070,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0790,058
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,013

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,469
Écart entre enseignants0,426 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePhysiotherapy CanadaMême sujetInterprofessional Education and CollaborationTravaux en français237 207