The Advanced Clinician Practitioner in Arthritis Care Contributions to the Scientific Literature: A Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives The Advanced Clinician Practitioner in Arthritis Care (ACPAC) program prepares experienced health professionals (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nurses and chiropractors) in the advanced assessment and management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease. Since the inception of the program, graduates have participated in health research and program evaluation. The aim of this study is to describe the peer-reviewed literature regarding ACPAC clinicians, the ACPAC program and literature authored by ACPAC graduates and/or program leadership. Methods A PRISMA-compliant scoping review was conducted to explore the above aim. Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched from June 2006 (first ACPAC program cohort) to June 2023. English-language studies of any design were included if they mentioned the ACPAC program, ACPAC clinicians and/or were authored by an ACPAC graduate and/or program leadership. Four reviewers (JH, LC, KW, LP) independently screened titles and abstracts according to pre-established criteria. Next, reviewer pairs conducted full-text reviews and extracted data from the selected publications. Conflicts were resolved by consensus among the investigative team. Descriptive statistics characterized the literature according to authorship, publication type, and study design. Articles were evaluated for factors of health equity using the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Results Of 5987 articles retrieved and screened, 106 were included for analysis. Of these, 85.9% were authored by an ACPAC graduate. 42.4% of the articles mentioned the word “ACPAC”. Most articles were published in rheumatology/arthritis focused journals (37.7%), followed by physiotherapy journals (14.2%). First authorship was observed in 21.5% of included articles, followed by 72% where ACPAC graduates were contributing author(s). Most ACPAC authors were affiliated with a healthcare institution (78.9%). Journal impact factor (JIF) ranged from 0.297 (Physiotherapy Quarterly) to 96.2 (New England Journal of Medicine), with an average JIF of 4.55 (SD 12.67). Over the data capture period, the year 2018 had the most publications per annum (n=18), with an average of 5-6 articles published per year. Observational (44.4%) and qualitative (25.6%) study designs were most frequently published. Rheumatic diseases (56.5%) and orthopedics (21.7%) were the most common areas of study. Evaluation of health equity factors revealed little mention of data collection related to race/ethnicity/culture/language, religion, social capital or socioeconomic status. Conclusion This scoping review demonstrates substantial contributions to the scientific literature by ACPAC graduates and program leadership in the study of rheumatic disease and orthopedics. Future consideration for ACPAC-related scientific inquiry includes expansion of study design (eg, controlled studies, systematic reviews) with conscious inclusion of health equity in study methodology.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,062 | 0,201 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,062 | 0,053 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».