How rehabilitation therapists gather, evaluate, and implement new knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rehabilitation therapists are strongly encouraged to apply research to their practices, but relatively little is known about the processes therapists use for continuing their education. This study examines the strategies used by a sample of therapists to gather new knowledge, evaluate its appropriateness to their clinical problems, and implement new learning into their practices. METHODS: Twenty-four randomly selected occupational therapists and physical therapists from a large metropolitan area participated in in-depth interviews. Descriptive codes within interview transcripts described participants' individual approaches to continuing education (CE). Themes derived from comparative analysis across interviews were interpreted, building on prior understandings and suggesting strategies for CE research and programs. RESULTS: Participants valued formal CE highly and expressed frustration concerning its limited availability. Most participants relied on informal consultations with peers as their first educational resource. Peers also supported participants' evaluation and implementation of new knowledge. Although seven participants reported use of systematic methods to access, evaluate, and implement new knowledge, others described more haphazard approaches toward evaluation and application of their learning. Participants identified economic, administrative, and interprofessional barriers to integration of new knowledge into their practices. DISCUSSION: There is a need to develop and incorporate guidelines for evaluating and implementing learning within formal and informal CE programs. The appeal of formal CE suggests that more efficient strategies for continuing rehabilitation are required. Therapists' heavy reliance on peers suggests that educationally influential therapists may be effective media for informal CE interventions. CE targeted to policy makers should focus on promoting organizational change to enhance therapists' translation of research into practice.
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 | 0.052 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".