Research-based education in undergraduate occupational therapy and physiotherapy education programmes: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a research-based learning environment, students learn how to become critical thinkers and lifelong learners, and to generate discipline-enriching knowledge. Research training is important for all healthcare professionals and the integration of research in education can be one approach to improve evidence-based practice among future professionals. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify studies reporting on research-based education in undergraduate occupational therapy and physiotherapy curricula to document the current state of knowledge and to map factors that reflect and support the implementation of research-based education in undergraduate occupational therapy and physiotherapy programmes. METHODS: A scoping review was used to systematically select and summarize existing literature. The search was conducted using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms in the following databases: EBSCO (Academic Search Elite, CINAHL, ERIC), MEDLINE, Embase, Education Source and grey literature. A thematic analysis identified strategies used to implement and promote research-based education in occupational therapy and physiotherapy bachelor programmes. RESULTS: The database search identified 3068 records. 75 were eligible for full-text assessment and 27 studies were included. The studies were published between 1999 and 2021 and were conducted in Norway, Canada, South Africa, Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand, Ireland, Taiwan, Italy, and Iran. The study designs were mainly quantitative and qualitative, and studies included primarily occupational therapy and physiotherapy students. We identified the following four strategies: 'student engagement in research', 'curriculum improvement regarding EBP', 'EBP teaching' and 'journal club', where 'EBP teaching' was most frequently identified. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this scoping review suggest that ensuring students' competence in research methods is necessary for students to be able to read and understand research articles, which are important as foundational skills in undergraduate research training. Journal clubs can be a foundation for student engagement with research literature, and students' basic research skills may be facilitated through their involvement in research projects and by conducting systematic reviews. Further, cooperation with clinical practice is important, and the awareness of research-based education should be increased among both faculty members and students.
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 | 0.053 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".