To Be or Not to Be a Cardiorespiratory Physiotherapist: Factors That Influence Career Choice in a Sample of Canadian Physiotherapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study explored the factors that influence choosing or not choosing a career in cardiorespiratory physiotherapy (CRP) from the perspective of a group of currently practising, experienced physiotherapists in Canada. Methods: A modified Dillman approach was used to distribute a cross-sectional, self-administered, online questionnaire to all eligible members of the cardiorespiratory and orthopaedic divisions of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association. A total of 438 participants—21 CRP and 417 non-CRP therapists—completed the survey. The survey response rate was 9.4%. Results: A narrow scope of practice (61.9%) and a lack of interest in CRP subject matter (50.1%) were the most influential factors deterring the respondents from making CRP their career choice. Interest in CRP (81.0%), mentorship (76.2%), access to physical resources (76.2%), and inter-professional practice (71.4%) were the most influential factors in pursuing a career in CRP. Conclusion: Increasing the awareness of the scope of practice for CRP, exposure to positive mentors, and rich practice settings are key factors in promoting physiotherapists' specialisation in CRP.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".