Individual and organizational factors associated with evidence‐based practice among physical and occupational therapy recent graduates: A cross‐sectional national study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) programs in Canada have moved to graduate-level entry education to address graduates' readiness for evidence-based practice (EBP). Whether rehabilitation professionals with advanced training in EBP are meeting their responsibilities as evidence-based professionals upon entry into practice and the factors that influence the use of evidence is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the individual and organizational factors associated with the use of EBP and supporting evidence-based activities among graduates of professional OT and PT master's programs. METHODS: A cross-sectional design using a survey of recent graduates of the 29 OT and PT programs in Canada. The survey measured six constructs supportive of EBP (ie, knowledge, attitudes, confidence, organizational resources, actual use of EBP, and evidence-based activities). Analyses consisted of descriptive statistics to characterize the sample and the different variables and ordinal multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: 257 graduates (15%) completed the survey. Attitudes towards EBP was positively associated both with evidence-based activities (odds ratio = 1.36 with a 95% CI: 1.22 to 1.52) and use of EBP (odds ratio = 1.23 with a 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.36); greater confidence was related to greater use of EBP (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.24); and working in a private practice setting was found to be related to performing more evidence-based activities (odds ratio = 3.15, 95% CI: 1.40 to 7.12). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a greater focus on EBP knowledge in these curricula across Canada, knowledge was not related to EBP use nor evidence-based activities upon entry into practice. On the other hand, attitudes, confidence and working in private practice were. University programs should consider curricular strategies that increase the use of EBP, provide opportunities to engage in evidence-based activities with an emphasis on promoting the development of positive attitudes towards EBP and increasing learners' confidence in their ability to be evidence-based professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".