No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another

A systematic review

Peter Lekkas, Thomas Larsen, Saravana Kumar, Karen Grimmer, Leah Nyland, Lucy Chipchase, Gwendolen Jull, Peter Buttrum, Libby Carr, Jenny Finch

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

92 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Question: Which models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education are being used internationally in allied health disciplines? What is the effect and, from the perspective of stakeholders, what are the advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for successful implementation of different models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education? Design: Systematic review with data from quantitative and qualitative studies synthesised in a narrative format. Participants: Undergraduates/entry-level students from five allied health disciplines undergoing clinical education. Intervention: Six broad models of clinical education: one-educator-to-one-student (1:1); one-educator-to-multiple-students (1:2); multiple-educators-to-one-student (2:1); multiple-educators-to-multiple-students (2:2); non-discipline-specific-educator and student-as-educator. Outcome measures: Models were examined for productivity; student assessment; and advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for implementation. Results: The review found few experimental studies, and a large amount of descriptive research and opinion pieces. The rigour of quantitative evidence was low, however qualitative was higher. Evidence supporting one model over another was largely deficient with few comparative studies available for analysis. Each model proffered strengths and weaknesses, which were unique to the model. Conclusion: There is currently no 'gold standard' model of clinical education. The perception that one model is superior to any other is based on anecdotes and historical precedents, rather than on meaningful, robust, comparative studies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)19-28
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Physiotherapy
Volume53
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Students
Education
Anecdotes
Health
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Research

Cite this

Lekkas, P., Larsen, T., Kumar, S., Grimmer, K., Nyland, L., Chipchase, L., ... Finch, J. (2007). No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another: A systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy, 53(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(07)70058-2
Lekkas, Peter ; Larsen, Thomas ; Kumar, Saravana ; Grimmer, Karen ; Nyland, Leah ; Chipchase, Lucy ; Jull, Gwendolen ; Buttrum, Peter ; Carr, Libby ; Finch, Jenny. / No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another : A systematic review. In: Journal of Physiotherapy. 2007 ; Vol. 53, No. 1. pp. 19-28.
@article{f0fbef0afbb74f729c347a3fd6228ea7,
title = "No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another: A systematic review",
abstract = "Question: Which models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education are being used internationally in allied health disciplines? What is the effect and, from the perspective of stakeholders, what are the advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for successful implementation of different models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education? Design: Systematic review with data from quantitative and qualitative studies synthesised in a narrative format. Participants: Undergraduates/entry-level students from five allied health disciplines undergoing clinical education. Intervention: Six broad models of clinical education: one-educator-to-one-student (1:1); one-educator-to-multiple-students (1:2); multiple-educators-to-one-student (2:1); multiple-educators-to-multiple-students (2:2); non-discipline-specific-educator and student-as-educator. Outcome measures: Models were examined for productivity; student assessment; and advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for implementation. Results: The review found few experimental studies, and a large amount of descriptive research and opinion pieces. The rigour of quantitative evidence was low, however qualitative was higher. Evidence supporting one model over another was largely deficient with few comparative studies available for analysis. Each model proffered strengths and weaknesses, which were unique to the model. Conclusion: There is currently no 'gold standard' model of clinical education. The perception that one model is superior to any other is based on anecdotes and historical precedents, rather than on meaningful, robust, comparative studies.",
keywords = "Educational, Health occupations, Models, Physical therapy (specialty), Review literature, Students, Teaching",
author = "Peter Lekkas and Thomas Larsen and Saravana Kumar and Karen Grimmer and Leah Nyland and Lucy Chipchase and Gwendolen Jull and Peter Buttrum and Libby Carr and Jenny Finch",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1016/S0004-9514(07)70058-2",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
pages = "19--28",
journal = "Australian Journal of Physiotherapy",
issn = "0004-9514",
publisher = "Australian Physiotherapy Association",
number = "1",

}

Lekkas, P, Larsen, T, Kumar, S, Grimmer, K, Nyland, L, Chipchase, L, Jull, G, Buttrum, P, Carr, L & Finch, J 2007, 'No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another: A systematic review', Journal of Physiotherapy, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(07)70058-2

No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another : A systematic review. / Lekkas, Peter; Larsen, Thomas; Kumar, Saravana; Grimmer, Karen; Nyland, Leah; Chipchase, Lucy; Jull, Gwendolen; Buttrum, Peter; Carr, Libby; Finch, Jenny.

In: Journal of Physiotherapy, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2007, p. 19-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Lekkas, Peter

AU - Larsen, Thomas

AU - Kumar, Saravana

AU - Grimmer, Karen

AU - Nyland, Leah

AU - Chipchase, Lucy

AU - Jull, Gwendolen

AU - Buttrum, Peter

AU - Carr, Libby

AU - Finch, Jenny

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Question: Which models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education are being used internationally in allied health disciplines? What is the effect and, from the perspective of stakeholders, what are the advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for successful implementation of different models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education? Design: Systematic review with data from quantitative and qualitative studies synthesised in a narrative format. Participants: Undergraduates/entry-level students from five allied health disciplines undergoing clinical education. Intervention: Six broad models of clinical education: one-educator-to-one-student (1:1); one-educator-to-multiple-students (1:2); multiple-educators-to-one-student (2:1); multiple-educators-to-multiple-students (2:2); non-discipline-specific-educator and student-as-educator. Outcome measures: Models were examined for productivity; student assessment; and advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for implementation. Results: The review found few experimental studies, and a large amount of descriptive research and opinion pieces. The rigour of quantitative evidence was low, however qualitative was higher. Evidence supporting one model over another was largely deficient with few comparative studies available for analysis. Each model proffered strengths and weaknesses, which were unique to the model. Conclusion: There is currently no 'gold standard' model of clinical education. The perception that one model is superior to any other is based on anecdotes and historical precedents, rather than on meaningful, robust, comparative studies.

AB - Question: Which models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education are being used internationally in allied health disciplines? What is the effect and, from the perspective of stakeholders, what are the advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for successful implementation of different models of undergraduate/entry-level clinical education? Design: Systematic review with data from quantitative and qualitative studies synthesised in a narrative format. Participants: Undergraduates/entry-level students from five allied health disciplines undergoing clinical education. Intervention: Six broad models of clinical education: one-educator-to-one-student (1:1); one-educator-to-multiple-students (1:2); multiple-educators-to-one-student (2:1); multiple-educators-to-multiple-students (2:2); non-discipline-specific-educator and student-as-educator. Outcome measures: Models were examined for productivity; student assessment; and advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for implementation. Results: The review found few experimental studies, and a large amount of descriptive research and opinion pieces. The rigour of quantitative evidence was low, however qualitative was higher. Evidence supporting one model over another was largely deficient with few comparative studies available for analysis. Each model proffered strengths and weaknesses, which were unique to the model. Conclusion: There is currently no 'gold standard' model of clinical education. The perception that one model is superior to any other is based on anecdotes and historical precedents, rather than on meaningful, robust, comparative studies.

KW - Educational

KW - Health occupations

KW - Models

KW - Physical therapy (specialty)

KW - Review literature

KW - Students

KW - Teaching

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33947100036&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0004-9514(07)70058-2

DO - 10.1016/S0004-9514(07)70058-2

M3 - Review article

VL - 53

SP - 19

EP - 28

JO - Australian Journal of Physiotherapy

JF - Australian Journal of Physiotherapy

SN - 0004-9514

IS - 1

ER -