Canadian Physiotherapists’ Perspectives About Core Professional Values and Associated Behaviours: A Qualitative Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Core values influence health care professionals' behaviours and decision-making. Research has yet to examine Canadian physiotherapists’ views about core professional values (CPVs). We explore physiotherapists’ views about CPVs and associated behaviours (ABs). Method: A qualitative descriptive approach was undertaken. Narrative text data collected from members of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (CPA), including physiotherapists, physiotherapist assistants, retired and student members, regulators, and executives and members in leadership roles during three rounds of e-Delphi surveys, conducted as part of the CPA Core Professional Values and Associated Behaviours document development process, were analyzed using descriptive content analysis by teams of two researchers. Results: Three categories (Integral … It's a given; Perhaps, it's debatable; Conflicting, competing and differing tensions and perspectives) and two sub-categories (In part, maybe, but … I'm not sure I completely agree with what you are proposing; I beg to differ … I'm not on board with what you are proposing) emerged. Accountability, integrity, and respect were perceived most positively. Wavering views regarding advocacy, client/patient-centredness, compassion/caring, and excellence were evident. Altruism, equity, and social accountability had the most contentious and divergent perspectives. Conclusion: Views about CPVs varied on a continuum from wholly positive/agreement to more neutral to ambivalent to wholly negative/disagreement. Future research, utilizing different theoretical approaches, can further our understanding about the role CPVs play in the practice of Canadian 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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".