Benefits and Challenges of International Clinical Education from a US‐based Physiotherapist Faculty Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The influence of internationalization on physiotherapist education in at least North American-based programmes has become more apparent. Faculty and students have been involved in various international activities. One category of activities includes international clinical education (ICE), where students earn clinical education credit for their learning activities at international sites. Although this educational strategy appears to be increasingly used in at least the United States and Canada, the related literature is limited in scope. The purpose of this portion of the present study was to investigate the benefits and challenges of ICE for US-based students, US-based physiotherapy programmes and international partners from the perspective of US-based faculty sending students for clinical education internationally. METHODS: Content analysis was used for this qualitative study. Fifteen US-based faculty members who had experience in sending physiotherapist students for ICE were recruited. The primary researcher conducted semi-structured phone interviews, averaging approximately 60 minutes in length. The primary and secondary researchers completed data analysis using NVivo 8 software (QSR International Inc., Cambridge, MA). RESULTS: Benefits of ICE to the students included exposure to alternate health systems, broadening of student perspectives and clinical competence. Challenges consisted of funding and possible language barrier. Increased visibility, expanded global perspective and faculty collaborations were benefits to the programme. Ensuring a quality learning experience was the greatest programme challenge. Benefits to the international site included education and faculty collaborations/exchanges; challenges were language, student clinical preparation and unfamiliarity with the student evaluation tool. Because the sample was limited to 15 US-based faculty members, the results may not be relevant to all programmes inside or outside of the United States. Additionally, the study lacked perspectives from the students or international sites. IMPLICATION FOR PHYSIOTHERAPY PRACTICE: The present study is an early step in the important examination of the impact of this emerging educational trend on physiotherapy education and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".