ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Deployment of professional expertise during a period of disruption: A phenomenological study of rehabilitation clinicians.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deployment of professional expertise during a period of disruption: A phenomenological study of rehabilitation clinicians.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Consensus Recommendations for Maintaining Neurorehabilitation Quality During Healthcare Crises: A Stakeholder-Informed Mixed Methods Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationalePractice context is known to influence the deployment of competencies. The COVID-19 pandemic created a major disruption in many practice contexts. The objective was to understand the lived experience of rehabilitation clinicians during a major disruption of their practice context, namely, the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsWe used a longitudinal phenomenological design. Eligible clinicians were occupational therapists (OT), physical therapists (PT), physiotherapy technologists (Phys T.), speech-language pathologists (S-LP) and audiologists (AUD), working in the same rehabilitation workplace for at least 2 years before March 2020 (the pandemic). Clinicians who were reassigned to roles outside the field of rehabilitation were excluded. We conducted individual online interviews using a guide developed by the team with expertise and knowledge of the phenomenon. An interpretative phenomenological analysis was carried out. Results were discussed until the research team reached a consensus.
resultsA total of 32 clinicians participated in the study (12 OT, 5 PT, 5 Phys T., 7 S-LP, 3 AUD), working with a variety of clienteles and work settings, for an average of 11.7 ± 7.6 years in the same practice setting. A wide range of emotions (e.g. anger, sadness, guilt, fear, pride) reflected clinicians' experience during disruption. Professional expertise was perceived as being enhanced by disruption as clinicians stepped out of their comfort zone; this encouraged reflective practice and a recognition of the need to be more explicit about their decision-making process. Collaboration with colleagues was perceived as key for effective coping and deployment of adaptative expertise.
conclusionsA disruption in the practice context may have positive effects on professional expertise through the mobilization of reflective practice.
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.