Electronic mentoring: An innovative approach to providing clinical support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Professional isolation is a contributing factor to poor recruitment and retention of physical therapists in rural positions. This article describes the implementation and evaluation of a pilot electronic mentoring, or e-mentoring, programme to address the need for support of physical therapists working in rural positions, in British Colombia, Canada. Methods An action research approach was used to examine whether an e-mentoring programme could effectively support physical therapists in paediatric clinical practice. The pilot programme involved an experienced physical therapist who mentored two sole charge physical therapists with no paediatric experience from a distance using their laptop computers. Programme evaluation data was obtained through questionnaires, field notes and a final group meeting using videoconferencing. Findings The key to the success of the e-mentoring programme was the collaborative interaction between the mentor and the mentee. Other factors that supported this interaction and beneficial outcomes of the programme were identified. Conclusions This pilot study has shown that technology combined with skilled communication can break down the barriers of distance and be an effective tool for clinical support. Further research is needed to establish the optimal organization of this type of programme and to rigorously evaluate the long-term benefits and effectiveness of e-mentoring.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".