Evaluating Physical Therapy Students' Knowledge of and Adherence to the Ambassador Low Back Pain Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine a process for evaluating physiotherapy (PT) students' knowledge of and adherence to the Ambassador Low Back Pain (LBP) guideline using vignettes. METHODS: The study used a cross-sectional survey design. Participants were PT students who had received information related to the guideline as part of their curriculum. Primary measures were responses to questions about the management of four clinical vignettes. Adherence to guideline recommendations was measured by comparing participant scores to a "guideline-based" set of responses from a physiotherapist involved in developing the Ambassador guideline, which was considered a criterion standard. RESULTS: A total of 74 respondents provided complete data, for a response rate of 89%; 65 (88%) reported no knowledge of the guideline. Overall consistency with the criterion standard was high (>70%). Respondents demonstrated high adherence when identifying red flags and deciding whether to refer to another provider. CONCLUSION: Despite known exposure, knowledge of the guideline was low in this sample of Canadian PT students. Nevertheless, in several key areas, unconscious adherence was high relative to the guideline-based criterion standard. With minor modifications, the vignettes are suitable for evaluating the Ambassador LBP guidelines in a larger study.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".