Implementing a novel dance intervention in rehabilitation: perceived barriers and facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify clinicians' perceptions regarding the facilitators and barriers to the use of dance in rehabilitation. METHODS: This study used a qualitative descriptive design. Three focus groups were conducted with clinicians across three purposively selected rehabilitation centers. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen allied health-care professionals (six occupational therapists, six physical therapists, and two social workers) with previous dance experience participated in this study. Four main themes emerged from the analysis representing the personal and organizational factors influencing on the implementation of dance interventions: (1) Clinician's dance experience and training, (2) Interest and personal beliefs towards using dance as a potential intervention, (3) Support from the organization of the institution, and (4) Available resources. Although each site was different, the main factors acting as barriers and facilitators were similar for all three sites. CONCLUSION: The identification of the barriers and facilitators to implementing dance in rehabilitation is the first step to support the translation of knowledge about dance. A tailored approach designed for clinicians and managers should address the main barriers to knowledge use about dance, as a potential rehabilitation modality for individuals with disabilities. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Personal and organizational factors can act simultaneously as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a dance intervention. Lack of time for professional development and lack of support from the organization are the main barriers to the uptake of knowledge about dance in rehabilitation. A knowledge translation strategy addressing the barriers to knowledge use is helpful for clinicians and managers facilitating the implementation of dance in rehabilitation settings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".