Practitioner and Organizational Barriers to Evidence-based Practice of Physical Therapists for People With Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify practitioner barriers (education, attitudes and beliefs, interest and perceived role, and self-efficacy) and organizational barriers (perceived support and resources) to physical therapists' implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) for people with stroke. SUBJECTS: The participants were 270 physical therapists providing services to people with stroke in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A cross-sectional mail survey was conducted. RESULTS: Only half of respondents had learned the foundations of EBP in their academic preparation or received training in searching or appraising research literature. Although 78% agreed that research findings are useful, 55% agreed that a divide exists between research and practice. Almost all respondents were interested in learning EBP skills; however, 50% indicated that physical therapists should not be responsible for conducting literature reviews. Average self-efficacy ratings were between 50% and 80% for searching and appraising the literature and below 50% for critically appraising psychometric properties and understanding statistical analyses. Despite Internet access at work for 80% of respondents, only 8% were given protected work time to search and appraise the literature. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Lack of education, negative perceptions about research and physical therapists' role in EBP, and low self-efficacy to perform EBP activities represent barriers to implementing EBP for people with stroke that can be addressed through continuing education. Organizational provision of access to Web-based resources is likely insufficient to enhance research use by clinicians.
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 | 0.034 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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; 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".