Factors Influencing Information Seeking by Physical Therapists Providing Stroke Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Searching and reading the research literature are essential activities for enhancing the use of research and optimizing the quality of physical therapist practice. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify practitioner, organization, and research characteristics that are associated with searching or reading the research literature among physical therapists involved in stroke management. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study design was used. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was mailed to 1,155 physical therapists in neurological practice in Ontario, Canada. Therapists who treated people with stroke were eligible to participate. RESULTS: Of the 334 eligible respondents, 270 (80.8%) completed a questionnaire. Among participants with complete data, 37.7% of 265 participants conducted online literature searches and 73.3% of 266 participants read the research literature 2 or more times in a typical month. The following factors were associated with conducting online literature searches 2 or more times in a typical month: participation in research, self-efficacy for implementing evidence-based practice (EBP), being male, perceived facility support of research use, and Internet access to bibliographic databases at work. The following factors were associated with reading the literature 2 or more times in a typical month: participation in research, EBP self-efficacy, membership in a professional organization, perceived facility support of research use, and positive perceptions about the usefulness of the research literature and the relevance of walking interventions evaluated in the stroke rehabilitation research literature. A positive association between searching and reading was observed (odds ratio=16.5, 95% confidence interval=5.8-47.1). LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional design limited inferences of causality. CONCLUSION: Despite a low frequency of searching, the majority of the participating therapists acquired and read the research literature on a monthly basis. Online searching and reading are closely linked behaviors. Modifiable practitioner characteristics, including self-efficacy for implementing EBP and participation in research, appear to be key determinants of EBP.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".