Pragmatism in practice: Mixed methods research for physiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to provide an argument for the place of mixed methods research across practice settings as an effective means of supporting evidence-based practice in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy practitioners use both qualitative and quantitative methods throughout the process of patient care-from history taking, assessment, and intervention to evaluation of outcomes. Research on practice paradigms demonstrates the importance of mixing qualitative and quantitative methods to achieve 'expert practice' that is concerned with optimizing outcomes and incorporating patient beliefs and values. Research paradigms that relate to this model of practice would integrate qualitative and quantitative types of knowledge and inquiry, while maintaining a prioritized focus on patient outcomes. Pragmatism is an emerging research paradigm where practical consequences and the effects of concepts and behaviors are vital components of meaning and truth. This research paradigm supports the simultaneous use of qualitative and quantitative methods of inquiry to generate evidence to support best practice. This paper demonstrates that mixed methods research with a pragmatist view provides evidence that embraces and addresses the multiple practice concerns of practitioners better than either qualitative or quantitative research approaches in isolation.
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 | 0.450 | 0.445 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".