The scholarly and practice profile of respiratory therapists in Canada: A cross-sectional survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Respiratory therapists (RTs) are expected to provide high-quality care for patients with chronic and acute cardiopulmonary conditions across the lifespan by staying abreast of emerging scientific evidence and effectively integrating it into clinical practice. This integration of evidence is encompassed within the competency of scholarly practice. However, there is currently a limited understanding of RTs' scholarly practice. Furthermore, despite RTs' widespread presence in the Canadian healthcare system, comprehensive studies describing the profiles of RTs are lacking. This study aimed to describe the demographic characteristics, scholarly and practice profiles of the respiratory therapy profession in Canada. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed via the national professional association and regulatory bodies. The survey contained seven sections with 52 items. We calculated means and standard deviations, or medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables and frequencies and proportions for categorical variables. Open-ended questions were analyzed using summative content analysis. Results: We analyzed data from 832 participants (6.8% response rate) from Ontario (17.8%), Québec (15.7%), and Alberta (13.3%), and across other provinces. Nearly 40% had completed an undergraduate degree beyond their respiratory therapy diploma. Few participants had authored or co-authored peer-reviewed publications. RTs reported reading approximately 2.2 peer-reviewed publications monthly. Most participants agreed on the importance of critical reflection in practice (93.1%) and that having a supportive work environment was vital. Almost three-quarters of participants (73.4%) reported that they believe that RTs are valued members of interprofessional teams, and 78% agreed that understanding research enables them to engage in patient advocacy. Conclusion: This survey provides a portrait of the practice and scholarly profile of the respiratory therapy profession in Canada. While the profession shows potential for growth, concerns persist regarding limited engagement in activities related to scholarly practice. Addressing these challenges and nurturing a culture of scholarly practice are likely necessary to support the development of scholarly practice in the profession. Creating supportive environments, providing access to resources, and encouraging professional development activities may advance the scholarly practice of RTs. Future national surveys could employ random sampling strategies to achieve a more representative sample of the profession.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».