ArticleThe South African journal of physiotherapy2022
A tool to evaluate physiotherapy clinical education in South Africa.
Article in The South African journal of physiotherapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Culturally adapted exercise program for postmenopausal women with excess weight gain: A modified international/local Delphi study.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Physiotherapy clinical education is complex. The dynamic learning milieu is fluid and multidimensional, which contributes to the complexity of the clinical learning experience. Consequently, there are numerous factors which impact the clinical learning experience which cannot be measured objectively - a gap which led to the development of our study. Objectives: To develop, validate, and test the reliability of an assessment tool that evaluates the effectiveness and quality of physiotherapy clinical education programmes. Method: A mixed methods approach in three phases included physiotherapy academics, clinical educators, and clinicians throughout South Africa. Phase One was a qualitative study: focus group discussions determined items and domains of the tool. Phase Two established the content and construct validity of the tool, a scoring system and a name for the tool, using the Delphi method. In Phase Three, factor analysis reduced the number of items, and the feasibility and utility of the tool was determined cross-sectionally. Results: The Vaneshveri Naidoo Clinical Programme Evaluation Tool (VN-CPET) of 58 items and six domains was developed and found to be valid, reliable (α = 0.75) and useful. The six domains of VN-CPET include governance; academic processes; learning exposure; clinical orientation; clinical supervision and quality assurance and monitoring and evaluation. Conclusion: The Vaneshveri Naidoo Clinical Programme Evaluation Tool is a valid, reliable and standardised tool, that evaluates the quality and effectiveness of physiotherapy clinical education programmes. Clinical implications: This tool can objectively evaluate the quality and effectiveness of physiotherapy clinical education programmes in South Africa, and other health science education programmes, both locally and globally, with minor modification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.