Factors influencing evidence-based practice in prosthetics and orthotics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The importance of evidence-based practice is being recognized across a broad range of healthcare disciplines as a means for improving patient outcomes and also efficiently managing healthcare resources. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work was to obtain information from clinicians about the underlying barriers and facilitators relating to evidence-based practice in prosthetics and orthotics. STUDY DESIGN: Cross sectional survey. METHODS: An internet survey was developed and distributed to 300 prosthetists and orthotists currently practicing in Canada. RESULTS: A principal component factor analysis of the survey results revealed ten primary factors affecting evidence-based practice. These include time constraints, workload and system demands, limited relevant evidence from research, and gaps in skills and knowledge required to perform evidence-based practice. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians value research as a means of improving clinical practice, but they are faced with a number of practical barriers in performing evidence-based practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides empirical data about the underlying barriers and facilitators relating to evidence-based practice in prosthetics and orthotics. Such data are essential in order to inform those involved in improving existing clinical practices, including educators, professional organizations, and governing bodies.
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it