Physiotherapy Students' Attitudes toward Psychiatry and Mental Health: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: A cross-sectional exploration of Notre Dame Australia physiotherapy students' attitudes toward psychiatry and mental illness, students' perceptions regarding preparation in this area for general clinical practice, and a cross-sectional investigation of current mental health—and psychiatry-related content in physiotherapy curricula across Australia and New Zealand. Methods: A questionnaire including demographic details, level of exposure to mental illness, and the Attitudes Toward Psychiatry–30 items (ATP-30) was completed by pre-clinical and clinically experienced physiotherapy students from the University of Notre Dame Australia. Students with clinical experience were asked additional questions about preparedness for practice. Staff of 10 of 17 physiotherapy programmes across Australia and New Zealand responded to an online questionnaire investigating relevant content and quantity of learning experiences in mental health. Results: Student response rate was 89%. Students generally had a positive attitude about psychiatry and mental health. Women were significantly more positive than men, and students who had completed clinical experience had a significantly more positive attitude. Physiotherapy program responses (response rate=59%) highlighted disparate approaches to psychiatry and mental health learning opportunities in terms of quantity and content. Conclusion: Entry-level physiotherapy students who have clinical experience generally have a more positive attitude toward psychiatry and people with mental illness. Given the prevalence of mental health problems and the increase in physical and mental health comorbidities, it is imperative that future clinicians have positive educational experiences in psychiatry. A coherent, integrated approach to mental illness and psychiatry is suggested for entry-level physiotherapy programmes in Australia and New Zealand.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".