Characteristics of Student-Led Clinics in the Allied Health Professions: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Student-led clinics can provide students from allied health professions with the opportunity to gain valuable placement experience as an integral component of their preregistration program, enabling them to develop their competencies, professional skills, and administrative and leadership skills. Student-led clinics have the capacity to help meet the demand for appropriate practice-based learning opportunities, as there is an expectation that all allied health professions students should have high-quality learning experiences, ensuring the future workforce is fit for purpose. An overview of existing student-led clinics will increase our understanding of key characteristics, assisting education providers who may be considering the development of their own clinics. This will include key factors to ensure that this model of practice-based learning meets the needs of service users, students, and education providers. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to increase our understanding of the characteristics of student-led clinics by answering the questions (1) what student-led clinics exist in the allied health professions, and (2) what are their characteristics? METHODS: This scoping review has been developed in conjunction with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We will consider studies and publications that include student-led clinics as an integral part of the preregistration curriculum for allied health professions students as defined by the Health and Care Professions Council. An extensive search of electronic databases will be conducted, including PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL, among others. Search strategies, including the identified keywords and index terms, will be modified for each included database used. Reference lists of all included evidence will be screened for additional relevant studies. Studies published in English with no date limitations will be included. Relevant sources will be imported into Covidence for screening conducted by 2 reviewers (SR and KB). Data extraction will be conducted by 2 reviewers using a piloted data extraction tool, and data will be charted and tabulated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Data will be presented with a narrative summary and illustrated by graphs and figures. The scoping review will be reported in conjunction with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews) and the STORIES (Structured Approach to the Reporting In health care education of Evidence Synthesis) statement for health care education evidence synthesis. RESULTS: An initial limited search was conducted in February 2024. The study will be conducted in 2025. Publication of the results is expected in late 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review will provide key information regarding the characteristics of student-led clinics and will be of interest to preregistration education programs within the allied health professions who have an interest in exploring opportunities to address placement capacity issues. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/58084.
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 | 0.093 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.008 |
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".