What is the global perspective on advanced practice physiotherapy: A qualitative study across five countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the growth of advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) and the evidence of its effectiveness, challenges persist in implementing and sustaining this model of care. The main challenge is the lack of a universally accepted definition. The lack of a clear understanding of what APP is, who can become advanced practice physiotherapists, and the required educational qualifications leads to widespread confusion among patients, employers, and healthcare providers. AIM: Our study aims to explore the global perspectives of advanced practice physiotherapy. OBJECTIVES: 1.To understand how APP is defined and develop a common definition across countries. 2.To understand the difference between APP and clinical specialists. 3.To understand the clinical practice challenges of working as an advanced practice physiotherapist. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was carried out through four online focus groups with participants from Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, and the focus groups were recorded, transcribed and analyzed. An initial coding framework was developed by two coders, with subsequent coding performed by one of the coders. Data were analyzed using reflective thematic analysis and reported following the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). RESULTS: Sixteen participants were recruited, twelve were advanced practice physiotherapists, and four were leaders or researchers. Three major themes were developed: (1) Advanced practice physiotherapists have a higher clinical expertise and a high level of responsibility, (2) Advanced practice physiotherapists are distinct from specialists based on the competencies, scope, and regulation, (3) Professional and operational challenges are associated with APP. Ten (10) sub-themes associated with the major themes were developed and presented in a thematic map. CONCLUSION: This study provided a common definition of APP, distinguished advanced practitioners from clinical specialists, and discussed challenges to implementation. The study explores the complexities of APP and specialization, emphasizing the obstacles faced by practitioners. The proposed definition can be tailored to meet the specific requirements of local and regional healthcare needs. Addressing the challenges to implementation could support the sustainability of the APP model of care.
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 | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".