A knowledge translation intervention designed using audit and feedback and the Theoretical Domains Framework for physical therapists working in inpatient rehabilitation: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Little is known about the process of engaging key stakeholders to select and design a knowledge translation (KT) intervention to increase the use of an outcome measure using audit and feedback. The purpose of this case report was to describe the development of a KT intervention designed with organizational support to increase physical therapists’ (PTs) use of a selected outcome measure in an inpatient sub-acute rehabilitation hospital. Case Description: Eleven PTs who worked at a sub-acute rehabilitation hospital participated. After determining organizational support, a mixed methods barrier assessment including a chart audit, questionnaire, and a focus group with audit and feedback was used to select an outcome measure and design a locally tailored intervention. The intervention was mapped using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). One investigator acted as knowledge broker and co-designed the intervention with clinician and supervisor support. Outcomes: The 4-m walk test was selected through a group discussion facilitated by the knowledge broker. Support from the facility and input from the key stakeholders guided the design of a tailored KT intervention to increase use of gait speed. The intervention design included an interactive educational meeting, with documentation and environmental changes. Discussion: Input from the clinicians on the educational meeting, documentation changes and placement of tracks, and support from the supervisor were used to design and locally adapt a KT intervention to change assessment practice among PTs in an inpatient sub-acute rehabilitation hospital. Implementation and evaluation of the intervention is underway.
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 | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".