An Investigation of How University Sports Team Athletic Therapists and Physical Therapists Experience Ethical Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study using interpretive description methodology. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to better understand how ethical issues are experienced by university sports team athletic therapists and physical therapists. BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, sports teams are associated with a range of ethical issues. Issues commonly reported in the literature include confidentiality, return-to-play decisions, conflicts of interest, advertising, doping, and use of local anesthetic. To date, there has been limited examination of how athletic therapists and physical therapists involved with sports teams experience these ethical issues, and limited exploration of how these ethical issues, when encountered, are shaped by therapists' professional roles and responsibilities. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 athletic or physical therapists working with sports teams in 5 Canadian provinces. The data were analyzed inductively, using a recursive approach and constant comparative techniques. RESULTS: Four key themes were developed relating to the participants' experiences of ethical issues: establishing and maintaining professional boundaries, striving for respectful and effective collaboration, seeking answers to ethical concerns, and living with the repercussions of challenging decisions. CONCLUSION: While many ethical issues reported by participants resemble those faced by sports medicine physicians, they are experienced in distinctive ways, due to differences in professional roles and identities. Issues concerning professional boundaries were also more prominent for the study participants than the literature has reported them to be for sports medicine physicians. Effective communication and enhanced collaboration appear to be key elements in managing these ethical challenges.
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 | 0.027 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".