ArticleAdvances in rehabilitation science and practice
Developing the Clinical Skills Training Tool: A Theory-Informed Framework to Strengthen Continuing Professional Development in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.
Article in Advances in rehabilitation science and practice. 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: Continuing professional development (CPD) is essential for maintaining competency and quality in healthcare practice, yet low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) often lack practical guidance to design, implement, and sustain CPD programs. While implementation science frameworks provide theoretical structure, accessible tools to operationalize these frameworks for rehabilitation workforce development remain limited. This study describes the development and pilot testing of the Clinical Skills Training Tool (CSTT); a theory-informed, planning and evaluation tool to support contextually relevant CPD development for rehabilitation professionals. Methods: The CSTT was developed using implementation science frameworks, including the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and incorporated the Kirkpatrick model to guide CPD evaluation. The tool was piloted between 2021 and 2024 with multidisciplinary rehabilitation stakeholders in Myanmar, Ukraine, Uganda, and Pakistan. Data were collected through stakeholder workshops, structured planning activities, guided reflections, and evaluation of CPD programs developed using the tool. Qualitative framework-informed analysis was used to assess usability, feasibility, contextual adaptation, and implementation factors influencing tool use. Results: A total of 191 stakeholders participated in CSTT pilot implementation across 4 countries. The tool supported systematic identification of workforce training priorities, structured CPD program design, and development of evaluation strategies. CSTT-supported programs demonstrated improvements in stakeholder knowledge, clinical confidence, and adoption of structured evaluation practices. Stakeholders successfully adapted the tool across diverse health system contexts while maintaining fidelity to core planning processes. Iterative refinement improved usability, clarity, and sustainability guidance. Conclusions: The CSTT operationalizes implementation science frameworks into a practical, adaptable tool to support CPD planning and evaluation in LMIC rehabilitation settings. By bridging the gap between implementation theory and workforce development practice, the CSTT provides a scalable approach to strengthening rehabilitation workforce capacity and supporting sustainable CPD systems across diverse global contexts.
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.