“They put you on your toes”: Physical Therapists' Perceived Benefits from and Barriers to Supervising Students in the Clinical Setting
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
PURPOSE: To identify the perceived benefits of and barriers to clinical supervision of physical therapy (PT) students. METHOD: In this qualitative descriptive study, three focus groups and six key-informant interviews were conducted with clinical physical therapists or administrators working in acute care, orthopaedic rehabilitation, or complex continuing care. Data were coded and analyzed for common ideas using a constant comparison approach. RESULTS: Perceived barriers to supervising students tended to be extrinsic: time and space constraints, challenging or difficult students, and decreased autonomy or flexibility for the clinical physical therapists. Benefits tended to be intrinsic: teaching provided personal gratification by promoting reflective practice and exposing clinical educators to current knowledge. The culture of different health care institutions was an important factor in therapists' perceptions of student supervision. CONCLUSIONS: Despite different disciplines and models of supervision, there is considerable synchronicity in the issues reported by physical therapists and other disciplines. Embedding the value of clinical teaching in the institution, along with strong communication links among academic partners, institutions, and potential clinical faculty, may mitigate barriers and increase the commitment and satisfaction of teaching staff.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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