| Title |
Which learning activities enhance physiotherapy practice? A systematic review protocol of quantitative and qualitative studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0475-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edmund Leahy, Lucy Chipchase, Felicity Blackstock |
| Abstract |
Learning activities are fundamental for the development of expertise in physiotherapy practice. Continuing professional development (CPD) encompasses formal and informal learning activities undertaken by physiotherapists. Identifying the most efficient and effective learning activities is essential to enable the profession to assimilate research findings and improve clinical skills to ensure the most efficacious care for clients. To date, systematic reviews on the effectiveness of CPD provide limited guidance on the most efficacious models of professional development for physiotherapists. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate which learning activities enhance physiotherapy practice. A search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO (Psychological Abstracts), PEDro, Cochrane Library, AMED and Educational Resources and Information Center (ERIC) will be completed. Citation searching and reference list searching will be undertaken to locate additional studies. Quantitative and qualitative studies will be included if they examine the impact of learning activities on clinician's behaviour, attitude, knowledge, beliefs, skills, self-efficacy, work satisfaction and patient outcomes. Risk of bias will be assessed by two independent researchers. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) and Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) will be used to synthesise results where a meta-analysis is possible. Where a meta-analysis is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be conducted. PROSPERO CRD42016050157. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 105 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Librarian | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 23% |
| Unknown | 23 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 37% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 29 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2020.
All research outputs
#12,839,346
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,355
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,042
of 310,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#30
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.