Mirror Therapy for Lower-Extremity Hemiparesis: A Knowledge Translation Study Using an Educational Module to Change Physiotherapists’ Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Despite growing evidence that mirror therapy (MT) is effective for improving lower-extremity (LE) function in patients with stroke, it is not commonly used by physiotherapists. The purpose of this study was to determine whether change would occur in physiotherapists’ knowledge of, confidence in performing, and willingness to use MT for LE stroke rehabilitation after participating in a 1-hour educational module. Method: A convenience sample of physiotherapists working in neurorehabilitation was recruited for a single-group quasi-experimental pre–post study. Participants attended a 1-hour educational module on MT. Therapists’ perceptions of the use of MT were assessed by questionnaire before and after they participated in the module. A follow-up telephone survey was conducted after 3 months to determine how many participants had actually used MT in their practice. Results: Nine physiotherapists participated in this study. Statistically significant increases were found in their perceived knowledge of, confidence in, and willingness to use MT. At the 3-month follow-up, three participants had used MT with patients with LE hemiparesis. Conclusions: Therapists’ knowledge of and attitudes toward MT for LE stroke rehabilitation changed favourably after participating in a 1-hour educational module. The module also led some therapists to make a change in practice at 3 months.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".