MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134994971 · doi:10.1080/09593985.2021.1895387

Augmented behavioral medicine competencies in physical therapy students’ clinical reasoning with a targeted curriculum: a final-semester cohort-comparison study

2021· article· en· W3134994971 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Elvén, Elizabeth Dean, Anne Söderlund

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Theory and Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumCohortMedical educationMedicinePhysical therapy educationPhysical therapyPsychologyPhysical therapistPedagogyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knowledge regarding the impact of curricula with behavioral medicine content and competencies (BMCC) on physical therapy (PT) students' clinical reasoning skills is lacking. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the clinical reasoning skills, focusing on clients' behavioral change, of entry-level PT students with or without BMCC in their curricula. The secondary objective was to compare students' attitudes and beliefs in a biomedical and biopsychosocial practice orientation. METHODS: Swedish final-semester PT students (n = 151) completed the Reasoning 4 Change (R4C) instrument and the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists. A blueprint was used for curricular categorization. The independent t-test was used. RESULTS: Students attending programs with BMCC curricula (n = 61) had superior scores compared with students without BMCC curricula (n = 90) in the following R4C variables, all of which were related to clinical reasoning focused on behavioral change: Knowledge, Cognition, Self-efficacy, Input from the client, Functional behavioral analysis, and Strategies for behavioral change. Students who did not receive BMCC curricula scored higher in the R4C contextual factors and reported a greater biomedical practice orientation than students receiving BMCC curricula. There was no difference in the biopsychosocial practice orientation between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the benefit of structured entry-level PT curricula with BMCC on final-semester students' clinical reasoning skills focused on behavioral change and their level of biomedical practice orientation. Further, our findings elucidated educational opportunities to augment students' self-efficacy and strengthen their behavioral competencies in clinical reasoning. For the generalizability of the results further research in other contexts is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.420 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy Theory and PracticeSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207