Additional file 1 of Student physiotherapists perceptions of online curriculum delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic

Additional file 1

Physiotherapy lecturers’ perceptions of online curriculum delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey

To establish UK Physiotherapy lecturers’ perceptions of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional mixed methods electronic survey of UK higher education lecturers, actively teaching pre-registration undergraduate or postgraduate physiotherapy degrees, was conducted between October 2020 and February 2021. Data was converted into proportions with a 95% confidence interval. Likert scale questions were treated as numeric variables with the mean and standard deviation calculated for combined responses. The thematic analysis reported patterns of data extracted from open-ended questions. 96 respondents completed the survey, reporting some positive attributes attached to online learning. 81% (n = 78, 95% CI 72–88) agreed that students developed their digital skills and were able to learn conveniently at their own pace (n = 75, 78%, 95% CI 69–85). However, 62.5% (n = 60, 95% CI 23–72) of respondents felt that students were overall disadvantaged with online learning, with 72% (n = 69, 95% CI 62–80) reporting that online learning was not comparable to face-to-face to teaching. The reasons for perceived student disadvantage were categorised into three themes; 1) a lack of ability in sessions to practice handling techniques, 2) the inability to gauge student understanding and check practical skill competence and 3) the lack of student self-directed practice time. UK physiotherapy lecturers did indicate they would continue to incorporate online learning in the future (n = 84, 87.5%, 95% CI 79–93). Such responses were based on two key themes; an improved work-life balance and the perception that online learning was no more challenging than traditional on-campus delivery. UK physiotherapy lecturers reported that students were disadvantaged with online learning delivery compared to face-to-face teaching. Lecturers indicated a willingness to continue with aspects of online learning across the curriculum, despite suggesting it had a negative impact on students subject understanding

Additional file 3: of Predicting the outcome of conservative treatment with physiotherapy in adults with shoulder pain associated with partial-thickness rotator cuff tears â a prognostic model development study

Model coefficient statistics (DOCX 21 kb

Additional file 1: of Predicting the outcome of conservative treatment with physiotherapy in adults with shoulder pain associated with partial-thickness rotator cuff tears â a prognostic model development study

Primary study reports and other articles used to identify prognostic factors (DOCX 21 kb

Additional file 2: of Predicting the outcome of conservative treatment with physiotherapy in adults with shoulder pain associated with partial-thickness rotator cuff tears â a prognostic model development study

Factors considered for inclusion in the study (DOCX 20 kb

Additional file 1 of Student physiotherapists perceptions of online curriculum delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic

Additional file 1

What makes a ‘successful’ collaborative research project between public health practitioners and academics? A mixed-methods review of funding applications submitted to a local intervention evaluation scheme

Abstract Background The national Public Health Practice Evaluation Scheme (PHPES) is a response-mode funded evaluation programme operated by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). The scheme enables public health professionals to work in partnership with SPHR researchers to conduct rigorous evaluations of their interventions. Our evaluation reviewed the learning from the first five years of PHPES (2013–2017) and how this was used to implement a revised scheme within the School. Methods We conducted a rapid review of applications and reports from 81 PHPES projects and sampled eight projects (including unfunded) to interview one researcher and one practitioner involved in each sampled project (n = 16) in order to identify factors that influence success of applications and effective delivery and dissemination of evaluations. Findings from the review and interviews were tested in an online survey with practitioners (applicants), researchers (principal investigators [PIs]) and PHPES panel members (n = 19) to explore the relative importance of these factors. Findings from the survey were synthesised and discussed for implications at a national workshop with wider stakeholders, including public members (n = 20). Results Strengths: PHPES provides much needed resources for evaluation which often are not available locally, and produces useful evidence to understand where a programme is not delivering, which can be used to formatively develop interventions. Weaknesses: Objectives of PHPES were too narrowly focused on (cost-)effectiveness of interventions, while practitioners also valued implementation studies and process evaluations. Opportunities: PHPES provided opportunities for novel/promising but less developed ideas. More funded time to develop a protocol and ensure feasibility of the intervention prior to application could increase intervention delivery success rates. Threats: There can be tensions between researchers and practitioners, for example, on the need to show the 'success’ of the intervention, on the use of existing research evidence, and the importance of generalisability of findings and of generating peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions The success of collaborative research projects between public health practitioners (PHP) and researchers can be improved by funders being mindful of tensions related to (1) the scope of collaborations, (2) local versus national impact, and (3) increasing inequalities in access to funding. Our study and comparisons with related funding schemes demonstrate how these tensions can be successfully resolved

Student physiotherapists perceptions of online curriculum delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract Background As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic a rapid transformation from face-to-face curriculum delivery to an online teaching and learning environment, was adopted in a number of higher education institutions globally. Allied Health Profession courses such as physiotherapy, traditionally utilising an in person teaching model to prepare students for practice, needed to swiftly adopt new methods of delivery, involving both synchronous and asynchronous approaches. Understanding physiotherapy student perceptions of this transition is important to allow faculty to develop their delivery of online teaching and provide an evidence base for future course curricula. Methods Cross-sectional survey of UK higher education students studying either an undergraduate or post-graduate pre-registration degree in physiotherapy was conducted between October 2020 and February 2021. The survey investigated the student’s perception of the transition to either an online or hybrid model of learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. A mixed method approach was adopted allowing respondents to share their experiences and facilitate the exploration of questions which required in-depth thought. Results Two hundred thirty-six respondents completed the questionnaire. Online learning was perceived to be a flexible (49%, n=116,CI 95% 43 to 55) and convenient (49, 116, 43 to 55) method of learning. Despite this, 79% of the students surveyed felt that the online learning experience had a negative impact on their understanding of the subject and were disadvantaged compared to traditional face-to-face teaching provision (mean 4.14 ± SD 1.06). Online physiotherapy delivery produced low student satisfaction, leaving respondents feeling disadvantaged. Decreased levels of engagement and the lack of ability to practice ‘hands-on’ skills were detrimental aspects of the online approach, with 55% (n=106) reporting they did not perceive the academic staff had the necessary skills to deliver effective online content. Conclusions The majority of UK physiotherapy students surveyed were dissatisfied and lacked engagement with an online learning approach within the curricula, compared with the traditional face-to-face delivery. Although several positives of both a synchronous and asynchronous delivery were highlighted, faculty must consider how they best deliver online learning content, making use of pedagogical strategies that will create as many learning and engagement opportunities as possible

sj-pdf-1-dem-10.1177_14713012211028501 – Supplemental Material for The feasibility and acceptability of a psychosocial intervention to support people with dementia with Lewy bodies and family care partners

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-dem-10.1177_14713012211028501 for The feasibility and acceptability of a psychosocial intervention to support people with dementia with Lewy bodies and family care partners by Alison Killen, Darren Flynn, Nicola O’Brien and John-Paul Taylor in Dementi

Student physiotherapists perceptions of online curriculum delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract Background As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic a rapid transformation from face-to-face curriculum delivery to an online teaching and learning environment, was adopted in a number of higher education institutions globally. Allied Health Profession courses such as physiotherapy, traditionally utilising an in person teaching model to prepare students for practice, needed to swiftly adopt new methods of delivery, involving both synchronous and asynchronous approaches. Understanding physiotherapy student perceptions of this transition is important to allow faculty to develop their delivery of online teaching and provide an evidence base for future course curricula. Methods Cross-sectional survey of UK higher education students studying either an undergraduate or post-graduate pre-registration degree in physiotherapy was conducted between October 2020 and February 2021. The survey investigated the student’s perception of the transition to either an online or hybrid model of learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. A mixed method approach was adopted allowing respondents to share their experiences and facilitate the exploration of questions which required in-depth thought. Results Two hundred thirty-six respondents completed the questionnaire. Online learning was perceived to be a flexible (49%, n=116,CI 95% 43 to 55) and convenient (49, 116, 43 to 55) method of learning. Despite this, 79% of the students surveyed felt that the online learning experience had a negative impact on their understanding of the subject and were disadvantaged compared to traditional face-to-face teaching provision (mean 4.14 ± SD 1.06). Online physiotherapy delivery produced low student satisfaction, leaving respondents feeling disadvantaged. Decreased levels of engagement and the lack of ability to practice ‘hands-on’ skills were detrimental aspects of the online approach, with 55% (n=106) reporting they did not perceive the academic staff had the necessary skills to deliver effective online content. Conclusions The majority of UK physiotherapy students surveyed were dissatisfied and lacked engagement with an online learning approach within the curricula, compared with the traditional face-to-face delivery. Although several positives of both a synchronous and asynchronous delivery were highlighted, faculty must consider how they best deliver online learning content, making use of pedagogical strategies that will create as many learning and engagement opportunities as possible