ArticleBMC medical education2025
Recommendations for a core assessment set for neurological physiotherapy entry-level education in Austria - a multistage process including a Delphi study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandardised assessments are essential for diagnosing conditions, evaluating therapy, and formulating prognoses within physiotherapy. However, due to various barriers, including lack of knowledge, accessibility issues, and time constraints their routine use remains inconsistent. Defining a core set of standardised assessments for entry-level education is crucial in addressing these challenges. This study therefore aimed to establish such a core assessment set for Austria's bachelor's degree programmes for neurological physiotherapy and develop corresponding educational materials.
methodsA multistage process (2019-2024) was applied: (1) definition of the scope of the core assessment set; (2) preparation of a modified Delphi process, including initial screening of recommended assessments; (3) development of the core set through a modified Delphi process; (4) categorisation of assessments according to the intended level of student engagement; and (5) creation of the necessary content and structure for educational material to facilitate implementation. Representatives of all nine Austrian bachelor's programmes participated in the whole process. Assessments were categorised according to their intended level of student engagement: RECOGNISING (students should become familiar with the assessment through exposure) and APPLYING (students should learn how to perform and interpret the assessment). Voting results were analysed using descriptive statistics.
resultsBased on a number of 102 assessments as recommended by the Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy with 17 supplementary assessments included to infuse Austrian context, assessment screening and three Delphi rounds were administered. Results classified 15 assessments as RECOGNISING and 22 assessments as APPLYING. Nineteen assessments were placed on a supplementary list for further learning. Educational materials were developed to support students and educators.
conclusionsThe consensus-based core assessment set for neurological physiotherapy education in Austria ensures a necessary consistency across bachelor's degree programmes. The developed educational materials support implementation and can serve as a resource for both students and practitioners. Future efforts should focus on updating and refining the core set based on stakeholder feedback while monitoring its impact on clinical education and practice.
trial registrationCOMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Database https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2046 .
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.