Scoping Review of Curricula and Pedagogical Approaches for Physiotherapist Performed Point of Care Ultrasonography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study collates and maps physiotherapy pre- and post-licensure curricula and pedagogical approaches for point of care ultrasonography (POCUS). Method: We used a standardized scoping review methodology and reporting framework. A total of 18,217 titles and abstracts, and 1,372 full text citations were screened, with 209 studies classified as physiotherapist performed POCUS. Results: Of the 209 studies, 15 evaluated pre- and post-licensure curricula and pedagogical approaches. Seventy-two to 98% of pre-licensure programs reported including theoretical knowledge of POCUS and 44-45% reported practical teaching or competency assessment. In post-licensure studies of POCUS, 0-61% of physiotherapists reported training for POCUS. All studies of post-licensure pedagogical approaches included an assessment of theoretical knowledge of POCUS, but only one study included a practical assessment of competency. There was considerable variability in POCUS methods and duration of pedagogical approaches. Except for one study, all pedagogical approaches reported improvement in theoretical knowledge. Conclusion: Progress in physiotherapy-specific, standardized, competency-based curricula and pedagogical approaches in POCUS has been limited, with minimal research available, and considerable variability both pre- and post-licensure. These findings could be used to advocate for the inclusion of POCUS in pre- and post-licensure physiotherapy curriculum, and suggest a need for clear guidelines from regulatory colleges and licensing bodies, and a common terminology for physiotherapist performed POCUS. Future directions for research include a systematic review of the psychometric properties of physiotherapist performed POCUS within and across anatomical areas, an assessment of value of different forms of training, and an evaluation of the impact of physiotherapist performed POCUS on patient outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".