Perceived preparedness and training needs of new graduate physiotherapists’ working with First Nations Australians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a considerable and ongoing health gap experienced by First Nations Australians. Physiotherapists play an integral role in the health care of this population; however, little is known about new graduate preparedness and training needs to work in a First Nations context. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions of new graduate physiotherapists regarding their preparedness and training needs for working with First Nation Australians. METHODS: Qualitative telephone, semi-structured interviews of new graduate physiotherapists (n = 13) who have worked with First Nations Australians in the last two years. Inductive, reflexive thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: Five themes were generated: 1) limitations of pre-professional training; 2) benefits of work integrated learning; 3) 'on the job' development; 4) intrapersonal factors and efforts; and 5) insights into improving training. CONCLUSION: New graduate physiotherapists perceive that their preparedness to work in a First Nations health context is supported by practical and varied learning experiences. At the pre-professional level, new graduates benefit from work integrated learning and opportunities that evoke critical self-reflection. At the professional level, new graduates express a need for 'on the job' development, peer supervision, and tailored professional development, that focuses on the unique perspectives of the specific community in which they work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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".