Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Student-led clinics (SLCs) offer unique clinical placement experiences and address unmet community rehabilitation needs. There is growing evidence that SLCs provide high-quality experiential practice and adequate quality of patient care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with student-led care and students' perception of their learning experiences in a student-led physiotherapy clinic. METHODS: Eight participants with total hip arthroplasty attended 6 weeks of student-led group exercise classes. As a marker of quality of care, we assessed key outcomes including walking speed and endurance, lower extremity function, falls risk and self-reported quality of life after 3 and 6 weeks. Patients completed a satisfaction survey at the end of the program. Ten students who completed a placement during this time shared their perception of learning in the SLC. RESULTS: Student-led group exercise class was associated with improvements in walking speed and endurance, lower extremity function, a decrease in falls risk and improved quality of life. Patients were satisfied with their care. The SLC was a safe learning environment in which students felt well-supported to develop confidence and independence, were encouraged to reflect on performance and take responsibility for care provided. CONCLUSION: Patients are largely satisfied with the quality of care provided. High-quality authentic clinical learning opportunities provided in the SLC may offer pedagogical benefits over traditional practicums, and students are generally satisfied with their learning experiences. SLCs may provide a setting to expose students to research and gain appreciation for evidence-based practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".