Background Masters-level education is a key pathway of professional development for healthcare practitioners. Whilst there is evidence that Masters-level education leads to career enhancement, it is unclear how the programme pedagogy contributes to this. The objective was to: (1) examine the programme pedagogies and context that supports learning, and (2) synthesise the outputs, outcomes and impact of Masters-level healthcare programmes. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration handbook and is reported in line with PRISMA. Using pre-defined key terms and eligibility criteria, two reviewers independently searched Medline, ERIC, Web of Science, ProQuest, and CINAHL Plus databases from inception to 14th November 2016, reference lists of retrieved articles and selected websites. Data were extracted independently. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality. A Weight of Evidence Framework enabled evaluation of the overall quality of evidence. Data were synthesised using thematic qualitative analysis. Results Thirty-five studies were included. All studies were retrospective, evaluated programmes in nursing ( n = 19), physiotherapy ( n = 6), general and family medicine ( n = 4), public health ( n = 3), dentistry ( n = 1), interdisciplinary ( n = 1), and occupational therapy ( n = 1). Most studies were rated low in methodological quality, with an overall low to moderate weight of evidence for programmes’ outcomes and impact. Pedagogies that promote social participation and knowledge co-construction, reflection, learner-centred approach, relevance and authenticity influenced outcomes and impact. Conclusion(s) Notwithstanding the low to moderate weight of evidence, the review identified multiple positive outcomes of Master-level education for healthcare practitioners. Whilst the pedagogies that contributed to such positive outcomes were examined in some studies, there is a need to further explore links between programme pedagogy, outputs, outcomes and impact. A cultural approach to evaluation may capture how M-level education drives changes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-019-1768-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by airways widening and recurrent infections, resulting in episodes of chronic cough, sputum expectoration, and dyspnoea. This leads to deterioration in daily function, repeated hospital admissions and poor quality of life. The prevalence and mortality related to bronchiectasis is increasing worldwide with growing economic burden on healthcare systems. Physiotherapy for bronchiectasis aims to decrease accumulation of sputum, dyspnoea, and improve exercise capacity and daily function. A robust evidence base to support physiotherapy in bronchiectasis is currently lacking. This is partly because of inconsistency and poor reporting of outcomes in available studies. A core outcome set is the minimum acceptable group of outcomes that should be used in clinical trials for a specific condition. This decreases research waste by improving consistency and reporting of key outcomes and facilitates the synthesis of study outcomes in systematic reviews and guidelines. The aim of the study is therefore to develop a core outcome set and outcome measurement set for physiotherapy research in adults with bronchiectasis. This will ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are consistently used and reported in future research. Methods and analysis This project will use the COMET Initiative and COSMIN guidelines of core outcome set development and will include three phases. In the first phase, a comprehensive list of outcomes will be developed using systematic review of reported outcomes and qualitative interviews with patients and physiotherapists. Then consensus on key outcomes will be established in phase two using a Delphi survey and a consensus meeting. Finally, in phase three, we will identify appropriate instruments to measure the core outcomes by evaluating the psychometric properties of available instruments and a stakeholders’ meeting to establish consensus. Ethics The study was reviewed and has received ethical approval from the health-related Research Ethics Committee- Edge Hill University (ETH2021-0217). Registration This study is registered with the COMET database. https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1931. The full systematic review protocol is registered in PROSPERO under the number CRD42021266247.
Aims: To report estimates of the reliability and agreement of a new method for measuring the femoral Neck-shaft angle in the Jordanian population. The neck-shaft angle is an important anatomical indicator in orthopedics of the hip. While there are different approaches to measuring the neck-shaft angle in the literature, there is no agreement on the best technique used for measurement. CT scout view was used in this study to provide a promising alternative. Study Design: Observational reliability and agreement study. Places and Duration of the Study: Department of physiotherapy, school of rehabilitation science, University of Jordan and University of Jordan Hospital between March 2014 and October 2015. Methodology: Two independent raters calculated the neck-shaft angle on each hip of 50 pelvic CT scout images of healthy adults to determine inter-rater reliability. One rater performed the measurement twice to determine the intra-rater reliability. Intra-class correlation coefficients were used to examine relative reliability. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and 95% minimal detectable change (MDC) were calculated to examine absolute reliability. Results: The mean value of all angle measurements was 131.3. Intra-class correlation coefficients were 0.726 and 0.63 for inter and intra-rater measurements respectively. SEM and MDC for inter-rater measurements were 2.69 and 7.46 respectively. For intra-rater measurements, they were 2.84 and 7.86 respectively. Conclusion: The new method proposed in this study for measuring the neck-shaft angle showed good reliability and small measurement error.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.