The Experiences of Black Students in Physical Therapy Education in Texas: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Racial or ethnic minorities are underrepresented in many health care professions, including physical therapy. Understanding the experiences of minority students in graduate education provides insight into how physical therapy educational programs can promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, which are factors that have been shown to improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this study is to qualitatively analyze and describe the lived experiences of Black student physical therapists (PT) in Texas. REVIEW OF LITERATURE: Currently, there is a lack of qualitative research that investigates the experiences of Black students in physical therapy education in the United States. SUBJECTS: Nineteen Doctor of Physical Therapy students from 8 different physical therapy educational programs in Texas. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted using a phenomenological approach. All participants took part in a focus group regarding their academic experiences. Students' dialogues were recorded and transcribed, and the researchers identified recurrent themes. RESULTS: After the analysis of focus group content, it was determined that the following 5 themes characterized the students' experiences: 1) Barriers to enrollment, 2) underrepresentation, 3) implicit and explicit racism, 4) code-switching, and 5) desired image. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There is evidence to suggest that Black or African American students are subject to unique pressures that negatively affect their experiences during their PT education. Efforts need to be made by higher education institutions and individuals to provide a more inclusive environment to best support those students. By gaining awareness of the results of this study, educators and students can begin dialogues on how to foster inclusivity and cultural understanding in physical therapy education. Ultimately, understanding the experiences of others can improve how individuals coexist in an increasingly diverse society, and how clinicians provide patient-centered, culturally aware care to patients and clients.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".