Bibliographic record
Abstract
ANOTHER SUMMER full of restful and enjoyable days has ended, and now a new academic year begins. In this issue of the Journal, we again have a nice blend of topics on important issues, some of which we expect will inform your programs over this coming year. We also continue to receive submissions from individuals outside the United States, which confirms the broadening influence of JAH beyond our borders. In this issue, as evidence of the international involvement, submissions are included from Canada and the United Kingdom. Measuring clinical effectiveness (CE) and implementing evidence-based practice (EBP) are fast becoming major components in health care delivery. There is a question, however, regarding the level of knowledge and the application of these concepts by various professional groups. Upton and Upton report on their study that compares the knowledge and practice patterns among 14 professional groups in the United Kingdom. They surveyed 1000 professionals who were members of one of the allied health professions or health science services. They found significant differences in knowledge among the groups regarding EBP and CE, with many of the allied health professionals reporting a higher level of knowledge and application than those in the health science services. Two of the major reported barriers to implementing EBP were lack of time and money. As with most groups in higher education, tenure policies and practices are important issues for allied health faculty. Balogun and Sloan summarize their study comparing the perceptions of nursing and allied health deans on tenure practices and trends. Generally, both groups agreed on the value of certain practices and expressed strong support for the tenure system. Among the more interesting findings was that 77% of hoth groups ranked teaching as the primary criteria used in tenure decisions. It is clear that the health care team is becoming more and more involved in patient care. However, many students graduate from their programs without a clear knowledge of the roles and scope of practice of those other professionals with whom they will he working. Deborah Insalaco and colleagues report on the results of their study of the perception of the roles of occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech-language pathologists on the stroke rehabilitation team. A survey was administered to graduating students after their final clinical experience. She found that students had a good working knowledge of the primary roles of each of the other professions hut did not agree on the boundaries of practice of the other groups. There was also disagreement regarding the specific roles other professions should play in some medical conditions. The authors recommend that students have more opportunities for collaborative learning during their education. Butterwick and his team claim that until relatively recently, specific technical skills in many professions have not been subject to evaluation using valid and reliable instruments. They present a description of the process used in the development of an instrument using the skill of athletic taping as an example. Their team conducted a thorough task analysis of the skill in five different joints on the body. The instrument that emerged was pilot tested with a cohort of athletic therapy program students and revised. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important indicator of how an individual's health affects his or her ability to function. A better understanding of the determinants of functional ability is important as the population ages, particularly in rural areas. There is some evidence to suggest that self-reported HRQoL can he a very reliable indicator of quality of life and a useful guide to making collaborative treatment decisions. Cleary and Howell discuss the results of their study of individuals aged 65 and older in rural Idaho. …
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 | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.189 | 0.135 |
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".