Which Learning Activities Enhance Physical Therapist Practice? Part 2: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies and Thematic Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Post-professional physical therapy expertise requires career-long participation in learning activities. Understanding physical therapists' lived experience of learning activities provides novel insight into how best to enhance physical therapist practice from the perspective of the learner. The purpose of this study was to explore qualified physical therapists' experiences, beliefs, and perspectives with regard to learning activities and professional development. METHODS: Eight databases were searched for studies published from inception through December 2018. Study selection included mixed-methods and qualitative studies exploring physical therapists' experiences, perspectives, beliefs, and attitudes. Thematic synthesis was performed, and the GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research was used to assess the level of confidence in the findings. A total 41 studies with 719 participants were included. RESULTS: The key findings include physical therapists' perceptions that worthwhile post-professional learning requires more than attendance at professional development courses. Physical therapists perceived that worthwhile learning requires connection with others and being "taken out of one's comfort zone." Sufficient time and accessible, trustworthy resources were also valued. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate- to low-level evidence suggests that the choice of professional development activities and education design for qualified physical therapists should consider the inclusion of connected activities, activities that take participants out of comfort zones, time to practice, and trustworthy resources that are easily accessible. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of learning activities encompassing these factors, prioritizing those that minimize the barriers of time and distance. IMPACT: This study adds to the profession's understanding of physical therapists' lived experience of learning activities, providing novel insight into how best to enhance physical therapist practice from the perspective of the learner.
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 | 0.088 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".