A knowledge broker facilitated intervention to improve the use of standardized assessment tools by physical therapists: A cluster randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods of knowledge broker support to improve standardized assessment use. DESIGN: Two-site cluster randomized trial. SETTING: Acute rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 18 physical therapists. INTERVENTION: A 10-month intervention was collaboratively designed with an external knowledge broker and physical therapists to compare full and partial implementation support. The knowledge broker provided education and strategies for implementation to the fully supported group and recommended strategies to the partially supported group that they self-implemented. MEASUREMENT: Chart audit data documenting frequency of use was extracted at four timepoints. Ten focus groups were conducted to describe factors that influenced use. Focus group data were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and rated as barriers and facilitators for standardized assessment use. RESULTS: For the fully supported group, standardized assessment use at initial examination increased from 0% to 58.3% at month 2 and decreased to 17.6% and 11.8% at months 4 and 8-10. For the partially supported group, standardized assessment use increased from 0% to 46% and 50% at month 2 and 4 and decreased to 2.8% at months 8-10. For both groups, early use was seen multiple facilitators. At month 10, barriers included organizational changes that impacted intervention fit. In addition, the fully supported group didn't value the selected standardized assessment and the partially supported group lacked space. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge broker support improved both groups standardized assessment use early on, but it was not sustained. The amount of support could not be isolated as factors that influenced use varied by groups.
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 | 0.021 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".