Continuing Education for Advanced Manual and Manipulative Physiotherapists in Canada: A Survey of Perceived Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our purpose was to determine advanced manual and manipulative physiotherapists' (AMPTs') current use and awareness of continuing education (CE) opportunities; to establish their perceived CE needs by identifying facilitators and barriers to participation; and to explore the association of demographics with CE needs. METHODS: A questionnaire was e-mailed to 456 registered members of the Canadian Academy of Manipulative Physiotherapy. Data analyses using frequencies and percentages of total responses and t-tests for group comparisons were performed. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three (29.2%) participants responded. Most lived in an urban region and worked predominantly in direct patient care. More respondents reported engaging in informal CE than in formal CE. Hands-on or practical workshops were the preferred CE format. Common barriers to CE included professional commitments and cost and time of travel; facilitators included interest in the topic and increasing knowledge and competency. AMPTs with less physical therapy experience found cost to be a greater barrier and were more interested in mentorship programs and CE as a means to obtain credentials. CONCLUSIONS: AMPTs' preferred CE formats are inconsistent with the CE opportunities in which they participate. CE initiatives for AMPTs should include hands-on training and should account for time and cost to make CE opportunities more readily available to them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".