Evaluation of a knowledge translation intervention for HIV and rehabilitation advocacy in physiotherapy in three sub-Saharan African countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate a knowledge translation intervention to determine knowledge, attitudes and self-efficacy related to HIV and rehabilitation advocacy in physiotherapy students. METHODS: A pre and post-test study was conducted at three physiotherapy-training programs in Sub Saharan Africa - the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), the University of Zambia (UNZA) and Kenya Medical Technical College (KMTC). For each site, the knowledge, attitude and self-efficacy of physiotherapy students were tested pre- and post-intervention using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Students' knowledge improved with regard to being able to describe the challenges faced by their patients, knowing what resources are available and understanding their role as an advocate. In terms of self-efficacy, they felt more confident clinically, as well as being a resource person to colleagues and an advocate for their patients. This study highlights the need to contextualize knowledge translation interventions to meet the unique needs of individual academic sites. Students who have clinical experience working with people living with HIV are more likely to embrace their role as advocates in the area of HIV and rehabilitation.Implications for RehabilitationThe knowledge translation process used in this study gives a concrete example of how to use research evidence on HIV knowledge in rehabilitation applied within the advocacy process.Applying the principles of advocacy translates to understanding the management of HIV practically.Clinical experience in managing people living with HIV strengthens knowledge and improves the attitude of physiotherapy studentsPhysiotherapy students need guidance in realizing their potential as advocates for holistic rehabilitation care for people living with HIV.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".