The educational pathway to Advanced Practice for the physiotherapist: Protocol for a systematic mixed studies review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Advanced Practice Physiotherapy (APP) is a post-licensure higher level of practice that requires distinctly increased skills, clinical reasoning and experience. The four pillars that underpin APP are clinical practice, leadership, education and research. Multiple systematic reviews support that APP is beneficial to health care systems. While APP exists in over a dozen countries, it has yet to reach international recognition. A steppingstone in gaining global acknowledgement is understanding the educational pathway that physiotherapists traverse to become Advanced Practitioners. No systematic review has synthesized evidence to describe and evaluate the educational pathway for physiotherapists to APP. Therefore, the objectives of this review are 1) to describe the post-licensure educational pathways that physiotherapists engage in to advance their level of practice, 2) to evaluate the pillars of APP demonstrated by the physiotherapist after traversing a post-licensure educational pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic mixed studies review using a data based convergent qualitative synthesis design will be conducted. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PEDro, SportDiscus, ProQuest Education databases as well as the grey literature will be searched from inception to 02/29/2024. Studies that aim to describe and or evaluate the capacity of educational pathways to influence the level of practice of the physiotherapist will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data and assess methodological quality (Quality Assessment of Diverse Studies). Quantitative data will be 'qualitized', and all data will be synthesized via a clustered textual description and directed content analysis. After synthesis, two reviewers will assess confidence in the cumulative evidence (GRADE-CERQual), which will inform the discussion. IMPLICATIONS: The optimal pathway(s) to Advanced Practice for the physiotherapist will be evaluated to inform future high-quality research investigating the effectiveness of post-licensure education in developing Advanced Practice physiotherapists.
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 | 0.118 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.013 |
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".