ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2026
Exploration of the clinical exercise physiologist standards in the UK: are they fit for purpose and how could they be developed?
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2026. 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
Registered clinical exercise physiologists (CEPs) are recognised healthcare professionals in the UK and are registered through the Academy of Healthcare Science (AHCS). Their practice is guided by the Clinical Exercise Physiology UK (CEP-UK) standards outlined in their scope of practice and the accompanying curriculum framework. This study aimed to explore the current CEP standards and understand if they are fit for purpose in the UK. Three phases (1) a scoping review of Medline, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. A survey was phased (2) using a 1-5 rating Likert scale ranking the importance of each component for a UK CEP. Phase (3) consisted of two focus groups to gain a consensus on the current standards and recommendations for future iterations. Overall, academics (n=26), healthcare professionals (n=25), CEPs (n=10), service managers (n=6) and researchers (n=4) were identified through purposive sampling and snowball sampling. Phase (1) identified 24 studies containing relevant knowledge and skills. During phase (2), n=58 (82%) of participants completed the survey and n=25 (35%) attended focus groups in phase (3). All knowledge and skills identified from the scoping review, the CEP-UK scope of practice, curriculum framework and the AHCS standards of proficiency and good clinical practice (n=58) were accepted. For CEP practice, an additional three health conditions were accepted from the previous iteration into the current health condition categories. A knowledge and understanding of nine key health professions was also recommended. The final consensus identified that 58 key knowledge and skills across the current health condition categories were required by CEPs, meaning that the current CEP-UK curriculum framework is fit for purpose with only minimal changes required for the next iteration.
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.