Phronesis: practical wisdom the role of professional practice knowledge in the clinical reasoning of Bobath instructors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical reasoning is an essential aspect of clinical practice, however is largely ignored in the current rehabilitation sciences evidence base. Literature related to clinical reasoning and clinical expertise has evolved concurrently although rehabilitation reasoning frameworks remain relatively generic. The purpose of this study was to explicate the clinical reasoning process of Bobath instructors of a widely used neuro-rehabilitation approach, the Bobath concept. METHODS: A qualitative interpretive description approach consisting of stimulated recall using video-recorded treatment sessions and in-depth interviews. Purposive sampling was used to recruit members of the International Bobath Instructors Training Association (IBITA). Interview transcripts were transcribed verbatim providing the raw data. Data analysis was progressive, iterative, and inductive. RESULTS: Twenty-two IBITA instructors from 7 different countries participated. Ranging in clinical experience from 12 to 40 years, and instructor experience from 1 to 35 years. Three themes were developed, (a) a Bobath clinical framework, (b) person-centered, and (c) a Bobath reasoning approach, highlighting the role of practical wisdom, phronesis in the clinical reasoning process. In particular the role of visuospatial-kinesthetic perception, an element of technical expertise, was illuminated as an integral aspect of clinical reasoning in this expert group. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an interpretive understanding of the clinical reasoning process used by IBITA instructors illustrating an inactive embodied view of clinical reasoning, specifically the role of phronesis, requiring further investigation in nonexpert Bobath therapists, as well as in novice and experienced therapists in other specialty areas.
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 | 0.020 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".