Postgraduate Physiotherapy Training: Interest and Perceived Barriers to Participation in a Clinical Master's Degree Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To (1) assess whether physiotherapists in a large Canadian province support the offering of a clinical master's degree programme; (2) identify what sector of this population is interested in participating in a clinical master's degree programme; (3) identify the most common personal/professional reasons for enrolling; (4) identify the type of programme that would appeal; and (5) assess barriers to participation in such a programme. METHODS: The survey and accompanying cover letter explaining the study were sent by postal mail to all 2,552 physiotherapists registered with the College of Physical Therapists of British Columbia (CPTBC). RESULTS: The response rate was 17%; 90% of respondents support offering this type of physiotherapy degree in BC, and 14% reported that they were likely to enrol. Orthopaedics/manual therapy (41%) was the clinical area of most interest. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong support for a clinical master's degree in orthopaedic manual therapy in BC. There is greater support for a part-time programme with an inter-professional component, using a combination of e-learning and classroom teaching to reduce travel time and time away from family.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".