Communities of practice: Exploring enablers and barriers with school health clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is imperative that therapists keep pace with relevant knowledge and reflect on their practice. Community of practice (CoP) sessions provide clinicians with a forum to share stories, exchange information, and foster scholarly practice. Studies on CoPs in health care are limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the enablers and barriers to participation in CoPs. METHOD: Occupational therapists and physiotherapists in a school health program participated in a questionnaire (n=18) and semi-structured interviews (n=14). Analyses were completed using descriptive statistics (questionnaires) and interpretative phenomenological analysis (interviews). FINDINGS: Six themes describing participation in CoPs emerged: structure-engagement, learning, growth-becoming, fellowship-belonging, implementation-doing, and contributing-influencing. The findings highlight the importance of situated learning, reflection, and creativity to influence practice through discussions of ideas, research, and resources in small supportive groups of like-minded individuals with an informal, self-directed structure. IMPLICATIONS: Features to consider when implementing CoPs in the workplace are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".