No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another: a systematic review

Lekkas, Peter, Larsen, Thomas, Kumar, Saravana, Grimmer, Karen, Nyland, Leah, Chipchase, Lucy, Jull, Gwendolen, Buttrum, Peter, Carr, Libby and Finch, Jenny (2007) No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another: a systematic review. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 53 1: 19-28. doi:10.1016/S0004-9514(07)70058-2


Author Lekkas, Peter
Larsen, Thomas
Kumar, Saravana
Grimmer, Karen
Nyland, Leah
Chipchase, Lucy
Jull, Gwendolen
Buttrum, Peter
Carr, Libby
Finch, Jenny
Title No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another: a systematic review
Journal name Australian Journal of Physiotherapy   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0004-9514
Publication date 2007-01-01
Year available 2007
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1016/S0004-9514(07)70058-2
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 53
Issue 1
Start page 19
End page 28
Total pages 10
Place of publication St Kilda
Publisher Australian Physiotherapy Association
Language eng
Subject 321024 Rehabilitation and Therapy - Occupational and Physical
330199 Education Studies not elsewhere classified
730303 Occupational, speech and physiotherapy
C1
Abstract Question: Which models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education are being used internationally in allied health disciplines? What is the effect and, from the perspective of stakeholders, what are the advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for successful implementation of different models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education? Design: Systematic review with data from quantitative and qualitative studies synthesised in a narrative format. Participants: Undergraduates/entry-level students from five allied health disciplines undergoing clinical education. Intervention: Six broad models of clinical education: one-educator-to-one-student (1:1); one-educator-to-multiple-students (1:2); multiple-educators-to-one-student (2:1); multiple-educators-to-multiple-students (2:2); non-discipline-specific-educator and student-as-educator. Outcome measures: Models were examined for productivity; student assessment; and advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for implementation. Results: The review found few experimental studies, and a large amount of descriptive research and opinion pieces. The rigour of quantitative evidence was low, however qualitative was higher. Evidence supporting one model over another was largely deficient with few comparative studies available for analysis. Each model proffered strengths and weaknesses, which were unique to the model. Conclusion: There is currently no 'gold standard' model of clinical education. The perception that one model is superior to any other is based on anecdotes and historical precedents, rather than on meaningful, robust, comparative studies.
Formatted abstract
Question:
Which models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education are being used internationally in allied health disciplines? What is the effect and, from the perspective of stakeholders, what are the advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for successful implementation of different models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education?

Design:
Systematic review with data from quantitative and qualitative studies synthesised in a narrative format.

Participants:

Undergraduates/entry-level students from five allied health disciplines undergoing clinical education.

Intervention:

Six broad models of clinical education: one-educator-to-one-student
(1:1); one-educator-to-multiple-students
(1:2); multiple-educators-to-one-student
(2:1); multiple-educators-to-multiple-students
(2:2); non-discipline-specific-educator and student-as-educator.

Outcome measures:
Models were examined for productivity; student assessment; and advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for implementation.

Results:

The review found few experimental studies, and a large amount of descriptive research and opinion pieces. The rigour of quantitative evidence was low, however qualitative was higher. Evidence supporting one model over another was largely deficient with few comparative studies available for analysis. Each model proffered strengths and weaknesses, which were unique to the model.

Conclusion:
There is currently no 'gold standard' model of clinical education. The perception that one model is superior to any other is based on anecdotes and historical precedents, rather than on meaningful, robust, comparative studies.
Keyword Rehabilitation
Sport Sciences
models, educational
physical therapy (specialty)
students, health occupations
teaching
review literature
Health-care Students
Productivity
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ
Additional Notes This document is a journal review.

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) - Collection
2008 Higher Education Research Data Collection
School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 71 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 70 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 19 Feb 2008, 02:38:00 EST