ArticleCanadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR2025
Article in Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Healthcare systems are rapidly transforming in response to demographic pressures, changing funding models, technological advances, and new models of care. As a result, professions must adapt in parallel to remain relevant. In Canada, respiratory therapy stands at an inflection point. Respiratory Therapists (RTs) provide essential and complex care across diverse clinical settings, yet the profession remains anchored in traditional roles. Questions remain about whether RTs are evolving in step with broader system changes, and what may be lost if they do not. Methods: This paper originates from a panel at the 2025 Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists annual conference. We used narrative methodology and composite narrative techniques to synthesize the reflections of four clinician-researcher panelists into a unified account. Drawing on clinical, professional, policy, and research perspectives, we co-constructed a narrative that highlights shared insights, tensions, and opportunities in the profession. Results: We identified multiple sources of tension. RTs engage with evidence daily, yet most of this evidence comes from other health professions. This reliance constrains the development of RT-specific frameworks, guidelines, and research agendas. Additionally, scholarship in respiratory therapy often remains undervalued and narrowly defined, treated as an optional activity rather than a core part of professional identity. Finally, structural, cultural, and organizational barriers, further restrict the integration of evidence and scholarship into routine work. Discussion: Moving forward requires deliberate action to embed scholarship and evidence generation within the respiratory therapy profession. We suggest that strengthening research literacy at entry-to-practice, creating formal roles for clinical scholars, recognizing scholarly work within career structures and innovation incubators and interprofessional collaborations can position RTs as co-creators of solutions to health system challenges. By embracing these suggestions, the profession can evolve in step with health system change, enhance its influence, and secure its relevance in the future of healthcare.
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.