Entry-to-Practice Business and Practice Management Competencies: A Qualitative Systematic Review to Inform Canadian Physiotherapy Curricula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: There is increasing demand for business skills among health care professionals. The aim of this qualitative systematic review was to identify and summarize existing business and practice management (BPM) competencies for rehabilitation university graduates with the intention to inform curricula. Method: The key electronic databases searched include ABI/INFORM Global, CINAHL, Education Source, Embase, and Medline. The initial search was performed in December 2018 and updated June 2021 with the following inclusion criteria: articles addressing BMP competencies in university-level rehabilitation programmes in developed countries. To ensure professional position statements and standards documents were captured, this grey literature was also included. Resources were extracted using EndNote and two reviewers independently screened and appraised the resources using the AACODS Checklist. Results: Nine resources met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated in the qualitative synthesis. Quality-assessment scores ranged from 4 to 6 out of 6 on the AACODS Checklist. Several practice management competencies were consistent across multiple rehabilitation professions. However, business competencies were inconsistent with “marketing” and the “ability to develop a business plan” arising sporadically across Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy competency profiles, as well as individual audiology courses. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to suggest that a consensus exists for BPM competencies for rehabilitation university graduates in Canada. The aggregate list of 64 competencies compiled can be used to inform further research.
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 | 0.084 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".