Predictors of research productivity among physical therapy programs in the United States: an observational study

Abstract

Background: This study targeted the association of program characteristics of 203 Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) programs in the United States (US) reported by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) in their 2017 Annual Accreditation Report (AAR) with measures of core faculty research volume. The association of institutional, program, and faculty characteristics of an institution with core faculty research volume was investigated. Methods: This observational study analyzed data provided in the AAR about program research volume. Predictor variables included institutional, program and faculty characteristics. Research volume was measured as a ratio of 1) number of peer-reviewed publications, 2) National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, and 3) faculty with grants, per number of core faculty. Research volume was stratified by quartiles and analyzed using logistic regression analyses. The highest 25% were analyzed against the lowest 75%. Results: In the multivariate logistic regression analyses, research Carnegie classification was positively associated with NIH funding (OR = 4.04; 95% CI = 1.92, 8.48) and number of peer reviewed publications (OR = 7.63; 95% CI = 3.39, 17.14). Square footage of research space was positively associated with number of peer reviewed publications (OR = 4.58; 95% CI = 2.08, 10.11). Private status was negatively associated with NIH funding (OR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.17, 0.83) and faculty holding grants (OR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.19, 0.76). Conclusions: There is strong evidence that research culture (e.g., research Carnegie status and dedicated research space) is related to research productivity in DPT programs in the US. Private status was indicative of a non-research intensive environment, which may be reflective of a current trend of small, non-research based private institutions initiating DPT programs.

Toward scientific dissemination of undergraduate thesis in physical therapy programs – a cross-sectional study

“…Studies have been conducted on the participation of undergraduate medical and dental students in research activities, and the related barriers are similar to those reported in this study, such as lack of knowledge [ 40 ], lack of time [ 41 ], and issues in the student-advisor relationship [ 42 ]. The literature covers various aspects related to scientific publication [ 11 , 43 , 44 ], but specific factors related to undergraduate thesis have received little attention. The most important factors related to publication seem to be having adequate facilities and receiving grants to conduct research [ 43 , 44 ].…”

“…The literature covers various aspects related to scientific publication [ 11 , 43 , 44 ], but specific factors related to undergraduate thesis have received little attention. The most important factors related to publication seem to be having adequate facilities and receiving grants to conduct research [ 43 , 44 ].…”

“…However, the most important operational factor seems to be the type of educational institution, as studying at a public institution increased the probability of publishing in an international journal by seven times. This may reflect the Brazilian scientific reality, where public education institutions are the primary research centers, concentrate the majority of graduate programs, and receive considerably more investments for research than private institutions [ 53 , 54 ], all of which are important factors for scientific production [ 44 , 55 ]. This suggests that private institutions should reconsider the role of research in their programs, and public investment in scientific production institutions should be raised or maintained to support scientific growth and knowledge generation [ 56 , 57 ].…”

Challenges and Opportunities for Physical Therapist Education Research: Results From an American Council of Academic Physical Therapy Needs Assessment Survey

“…Research suggests that several factors affect a faculty member's ability to pursue research. [18][19][20][21][22] ese include faculty memberspecific characteristics such as the attainment of academic doctoral degrees 18 and having dedicated time to research or teaching 19 as well as institution-specific considerations such as institutional reliance on tuition revenues, 20,21 institutional control, 22 and research culture (as defined by Carnegie classification and research space). 22 However, the extent to which these factors influence the ability to engage in ER 15 specifically remains unknown.…”