Professional Values: Results of a Scoping Review and Preliminary Canadian Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Physiotherapists in Canada do not have an agreed-on list of core professional values. The purpose of this study was to identify physiotherapy values using a scoping review and to preliminarily identify the core professional values important to Canadian physiotherapists. Method: We undertook (1) a comprehensive scoping review of the primary and grey literature and (2) a cross-sectional survey of Canadian physiotherapists attending the 2016 Canadian Physiotherapy Association Congress. We conducted Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and CINAHL database and Internet searches to identify peer-reviewed and grey literature. Survey participants were asked to list two professional values that guided their practice. Thematic and content analyses were used to analyze the results of both activities. We combined the results of the scoping review and the survey. Results: A total of 23 Web sites and 11 primary articles were retained from the search; 88 physiotherapists participated in the survey. A final list of 10 professional values (accountability, advocacy, altruism, compassion and caring, equity, excellence, integrity, patient and client centred, respect, and social responsibility) was drawn up after analyzing the scoping review and survey. Conclusions: This study describes the first steps in the process of identifying a set of core professional values for Canadian physiotherapists. Although many of values identified in this survey aligned with values published in the literature, some were unique, and further investigation is required.
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 | 0.098 | 0.239 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.068 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".