Walking aid training as a clinical competence in Canadian entry-to-practice professional academic programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple healthcare professionals fit walking aids (WA) and train individuals on their use. The purpose of this investigation was to describe curricula on WA fitting and training in Canadian entry-to-practice professional programs. An online survey was administered to leads from all accredited programs (n = 199). Seventeen questions asked about the importance of WA education, instructional methods and time dedicated to WA fitting and skills training, and how the pandemic had affected WA curriculum delivery. Responses were received from 97 programs. While most occupational therapy (OT, 8/15), physiatry (PM&R, 5/9), and physical therapy (PT, 12/19) trainees received more than 3 h of instruction on WA fitting, most nursing (29/40) and pharmacy (7/8) programs spent less than 3 h on this topic. Most OT (9/15) and PT (15/19) programs spent more than 3 h on WA skills training whereas most nursing (25/40), pharmacy (4/8), and PM&R (5/9) programs spent less than 3 h on this subject. Across all programs, 52% educated students on adapting activities of daily living for WA while 18% provided education on WA maintenance and repair. Only 19/89 programs consulted a formal WA skills training resource for curriculum development. Seventeen of 55 programs modified their WA curricula due to the pandemic. There is a wide range in curricular approaches to WA education in Canadian professional programs. This highlights the need for a standardised WA education program to guide curricular development to ultimately improve safe WA use for clients with short- and long-term mobility impairments.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONCurricula on walking aids is extremely variable within and between programs.Navigating terrains, adapting activities of daily living, and maintenance are poorly taught.There is a need for a national standardized curriculum on walking aids.This curriculum should be modular and designed for practitioners, students, and patients. Curricula on walking aids is extremely variable within and between programs. Navigating terrains, adapting activities of daily living, and maintenance are poorly taught. There is a need for a national standardized curriculum on walking aids. This curriculum should be modular and designed for practitioners, students, and patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".