The clinical reasoning in neurological physiotherapy: an exploratory qualitative study on the (dis)similarities between Bobath and non-Bobath therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning (CR) is a complex and dynamic process that relies on therapists' cognitive, metacognitive, psychomotor and affective skills. These abilities allow clinicians to synthesize patient information, apply reasoning strategies, and adapt interventions in response to evolving clinical presentations. Despite its critical role in physiotherapy, limited research has explored how neurological physiotherapists develop and apply CR. PURPOSE: To examine the CR processes of neurological physiotherapists with and without post-graduate Bobath education. METHODS: Thirty-two experienced neurological physiotherapists were purposefully selected to participate in the study. Participants worked in rehabilitation centers, hospitals, and private clinics. A qualitative interpretive description approach was employed, in which video-recorded treatment sessions, used for stimulated recall, were immediately followed by semi-structured interviews. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and served as the raw data for thematic analysis, employing deductive and inductive methods. RESULTS: The study included 32 physiotherapists. Participants worked in rehabilitation centers, hospitals, and private clinics. In the Bobath group (n = 16), four themes developed: (1) clinical practice guided by contemporary Bobath assumptions and principles; (2) the movement problem centers the CR; (3) reasoning: person-centered and multi-dimensional; and (4) influence of contextual factors. In the non-Bobath group (n = 16), the developed themes include: (1) clinical practice: an eclectic mix; (2) prioritizing independence; (3) reasoning: combination of provider-centered and person-centered; and (4) influence of contextual factors. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that CR is shaped by clinical, interpersonal, and contextual factors. Bobath-educated therapists demonstrated a movement-centered approach to their reasoning, while NBG's CR revolves around task-independence and exercise-oriented strategies. Further research is needed to explore these aspects of CR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".