The scholarly and practice profile of respiratory therapists in Canada: A cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Respiratory therapists (RTs) are expected to provide high-quality care for patients with chronic and acute cardiopulmonary conditions across the lifespan by staying abreast of emerging scientific evidence and effectively integrating it into clinical practice. This integration of evidence is encompassed within the competency of scholarly practice. However, there is currently a limited understanding of RTs' scholarly practice. Furthermore, despite RTs' widespread presence in the Canadian healthcare system, comprehensive studies describing the profiles of RTs are lacking. This study aimed to describe the demographic characteristics, scholarly and practice profiles of the respiratory therapy profession in Canada. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed via the national professional association and regulatory bodies. The survey contained seven sections with 52 items. We calculated means and standard deviations, or medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables and frequencies and proportions for categorical variables. Open-ended questions were analyzed using summative content analysis. Results: We analyzed data from 832 participants (6.8% response rate) from Ontario (17.8%), Québec (15.7%), and Alberta (13.3%), and across other provinces. Nearly 40% had completed an undergraduate degree beyond their respiratory therapy diploma. Few participants had authored or co-authored peer-reviewed publications. RTs reported reading approximately 2.2 peer-reviewed publications monthly. Most participants agreed on the importance of critical reflection in practice (93.1%) and that having a supportive work environment was vital. Almost three-quarters of participants (73.4%) reported that they believe that RTs are valued members of interprofessional teams, and 78% agreed that understanding research enables them to engage in patient advocacy. Conclusion: This survey provides a portrait of the practice and scholarly profile of the respiratory therapy profession in Canada. While the profession shows potential for growth, concerns persist regarding limited engagement in activities related to scholarly practice. Addressing these challenges and nurturing a culture of scholarly practice are likely necessary to support the development of scholarly practice in the profession. Creating supportive environments, providing access to resources, and encouraging professional development activities may advance the scholarly practice of RTs. Future national surveys could employ random sampling strategies to achieve a more representative sample of the profession.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".