MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413984515 · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2025.103405

Physiotherapy students' perceptions of how the Cervical Framework influences their clinical reasoning: A qualitative single case study of a Canadian university

2025· article· en· W4413984515 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMusculoskeletal Science and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionQualitative researchMedicinePhysical therapyMedical educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neck pain and headaches are highly prevalent, often presenting a challenge for physiotherapists when considering differential diagnoses. For guidance, the International Federation of Manual and Musculoskeletal Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) created the International IFOMPT Cervical Framework. Its purpose is to improve clinical reasoning through various functional objectives and design principles. Although the Cervical Framework supports clinical reasoning among physiotherapy students, how this is achieved is unexplored. OBJECTIVES: 1. To explore physiotherapy students' perceptions of how the Cervical Framework's functional objectives influence their clinical reasoning. 2. To explore physiotherapy students' perceptions of how the Cervical Framework's design principles influence their clinical reasoning. DESIGN: Qualitative, constructivist, exploratory, single-case study. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews of physiotherapy students enrolled in one of three educational programs at one university were conducted. Directed qualitative content analysis informed by the Cervical Frameworks' functional objectives and design principles was used to interpret data. FINDINGS: From eighteen participants, meaningful data were found for all functional objectives, with particular value when informing clinical reasoning during assessment and improving understanding of risk. Students showed mixed perceived value in informing clinical reasoning during treatment and facilitating patient-centred practice. Physiotherapy students' perceptions of the Cervical Framework align with most of its design principles, especially its informative, simple, and non-prescriptive nature. Students also perceived the Cervical Framework as long and this may have affected engagement. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapy students in this case study perceive the Cervical Framework to influence their clinical reasoning by achieving its functional objectives and by successfully adhering to its design principles.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.395 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it