Exploring the awareness of research among registered massage therapists in Ontario
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increase in available research has highlighted that knowledge changes over time as theories are challenged and adjusted or dismissed. This is particularly important to healthcare practitioners, including massage therapists, who need to frequently review current research and adjust practice accordingly. However, when research findings related to practice are generated, there is considerable delay in implementation. Few studies measure actual knowledge of current evidence for practice. The objectives of the study reported here were to (a) describe current awareness of evidence for practice among registered massage therapists (RMTs) in Ontario and (b) identify the sources of information RMTs use to inform their awareness of current evidence and the reported importance and frequency of use for each source. METHODS: An online questionnaire-based mixed-methods cross-sectional study was conducted. Ontario RMTs were invited to participate. This report focuses on the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: In total, 1,762 questionnaires were included. Of seven sources of information provided, respondents rated cumulative professional experience as most important, followed by recent research studies and education. Cumulative professional experience also rated as most frequently used, followed by other RMTs and education. CONCLUSIONS: There was a tendency for respondents to agree with positive statements about MT, or disagree with negative statements, regardless of correctness. The results suggest that RMTs need to improve their awareness of the current evidence for practice. Furthermore, cumulative professional experience was ranked most frequently used. This has the potential to not include the most current research. Improving communication of research findings to RMTs might improve awareness.
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.
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 | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it