This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Systematic Review Protocols (268) Allied Health Professions (15) Undergraduate Education for Allied Health Professionals (40)

Published on in Vol 9, No 10 (2020): October

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/19039, first published .
Mapping Evidence on Community-Based Clinical Education Models for Undergraduate Physiotherapy Students: Protocol for a Scoping Review

Mapping Evidence on Community-Based Clinical Education Models for Undergraduate Physiotherapy Students: Protocol for a Scoping Review

Mapping Evidence on Community-Based Clinical Education Models for Undergraduate Physiotherapy Students: Protocol for a Scoping Review

Authors of this article:

Nomzamo Charity Thobekile Chemane1 Author Orcid Image ;   Verusia Chetty1 Author Orcid Image ;   Saul Cobbing1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations (1) Metrics

    Protocol

    Department of Physiotherapy, University of Kwa Zulu Natal, Durban, South Africa

    Corresponding Author:

    Nomzamo Charity Thobekile Chemane, BPT, MHR

    Department of Physiotherapy

    University of Kwa Zulu Natal

    Westville Campus E Block

    University Road Westville

    Durban

    South Africa

    Phone: 27 31 260 8865

    Email: ChemaneN1@ukzn.ac.za


    Background: Community-based clinical training has been advocated as an excellent approach to transformation in clinical education. Clinical education for undergraduate physiotherapy students is a hands-on practical experience that aims to provide a student with the skills necessary to enable them to be fit to practice independently. However, in many countries, including South Africa, this training has been conducted only in large urban academic hospitals. Such hospitals are not a true reflection of the environment that these students will most likely be facing as practicing health care professionals.

    Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to map out existing evidence on community-based clinical education models for undergraduate physiotherapy students globally.

    Methods: A systematic scoping review will be based on the 2005 Arksey and O’Malley framework. Studies involving students and stakeholders in clinical education will be included. This review will not be limited by time of publication. An electronic search of relevant literature, including peer-reviewed primary studies and grey literature, will be conducted from the PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases. The search strategy will include keywords such as “education,” “physiotherapy,” “undergraduate,” “community-based,” “training,” “decentralized,” and “distributed.” Boolean logic will be used for each search string. Two independent reviewers will conduct screening of titles, abstracts, and full text before extracting articles. A predesigned data-charting table will supplement the extraction of data. Version 12 NVIVO software will aide in the thematic analysis of data.

    Results: Data collection will commence after publication of this protocol, and the results are expected to be obtained in the following 5 months.

    Conclusions: The evidence obtained from the extracted data is expected to assist in the development of a model of community-based clinical education for undergraduate physiotherapy students in South Africa, and serve as a basis for future research. The discussion of this evidence will be guided by the research question utilizing a critical narrative approach to explore emerging themes. The enablers and barriers identified from the reviewed studies can guide the development of a community-based clinical education model.

    International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/19039

    JMIR Res Protoc 2020;9(10):e19039

    doi:10.2196/19039

    Keywords

    physiotherapy; clinical education; community-based clinical training; decentralized clinical training; primary health care 


    Clinical education is the integration of theory into practice in the health care environment, with the aim of developing clinically competent health science practitioners. This type of training is imperative in health science professions as it provides hands-on practical experience with real patients in a real clinical environment [1-3]. Traditionally, this training has been centered around well-resourced academic hospitals, mainly in cities close to universities [4]. However, a global shift toward community-based clinical practice conducted away from a university setting and large academic hospitals necessitates a change toward rural and periurban clinical placements [5]. This type of training is also known as decentralized clinical training [6,7].

    The primary health care approach has been identified as a “first level of contact in a health system” [8]. Therefore, it is essential for a curriculum to address the primary health care needs of the population, which are social responsiveness, inclusiveness, and participation [9]. This transformation prepares undergraduate students to be socially responsive to the needs of the communities they serve, giving them the confidence to become health advocates for their patients [4,10,11].

    Physiotherapy is one of the few health science professions that manages patients from the acute hospital phase in the intensive care unit to a chronic rehabilitation phase in the primary health care setting in the communities in which patients live. Therefore, diversified clinical training of physiotherapy students is essential for a curriculum that aims to provide clinical competence and social accountability [3,12-15]. Although this is also the case for medical students [6,16], there have been extensive global debates regarding practical placements and their effectiveness in producing graduates who are prepared for the changing health needs in the developing world [5,13,17-19]. The primary purpose of a school of physiotherapy is to develop graduates that have both the clinical reasoning and practical skills required to function as competent practitioners in all levels of care [20].

    Global research on health education programs [2,3,18,19,21,22] concurs that a community-based clinical training program that uses decentralized clinical training platforms is an excellent approach. This approach aims to achieve transformative learning, which enhances ethical and social accountability [17]. Decentralized clinical training in this context is defined as training closer to the community, away from universities and large academic hospitals. The changes in health education, including an increase in student intake and health systems requirements, are a driving force to ensure that students are well prepared to meet the demands of their communities. This will require an improvement, review, or change in the curriculum to ensure the preparedness of graduates to be competent professionals who can implement knowledge, skills, and values practically [3,7].

    A scoping literature review conducted by De Villers et al [6] confirmed that medical training in sub-Saharan Africa conducted at different clinical settings distant from large academic hospitals is beneficial in improving core competencies for students and in retaining these graduates in rural settings. However, less is known about other health science undergraduate programs in this regard, specifically for the discipline of physiotherapy. Therefore, there is a need for evaluation of existing global community-based clinical education models to contribute toward the development of a community-based primary health care training model in the South African context. This scoping review aims to examine and map evidence related to community-based clinical education models for undergraduate physiotherapy students and highlight their ability to produce socially responsive graduates. The results of this review will contribute toward the development of a community-based primary health care training model for undergraduate physiotherapy students in the South African context.


    Study Design

    The methodology for this scoping review will adopt the five-stage framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley [23], which Levac and colleagues [24] further elaborated by including aspects of quality appraisal. These stages are described in more detail below, in specific relation to the primary aim of this study. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for a scoping review checklist (Multimedia Appendix 1) will be used to ensure the inclusion of all relevant sections.

    Stage 1: Identifying the Research Question

    The main question that will guide this review is, “What are existing models of community- based clinical education for undergraduate physiotherapy students?”

    The subsequent subquestions that will pave the way for the review are as follows: (1) What are the clinical education models that exist for the physiotherapy discipline? What is/has been the practice? (2) How have community-based clinical education models been put to practice? (3) What are the enablers and barriers of the identified clinical education models? (4) Does any clinical education model utilize decentralized training platforms to ensure clinical competence through community engagement and social learning?

    The Participants-Concept-Context model will be adopted to determine the eligibility of the research question (Table 1) [25].

    Table 1. Participants-Concept-Context framework for eligibility of the research question.
    ComponentsDeterminants
    ParticipantsPhysiotherapy students at the undergraduate level of study, academics, clinical supervisors
    ConceptModels of community-based clinical education
    ContextGlobal

    Stage 2: Identifying Relevant Literature

    A comprehensive search strategy will be developed for this review to harness related studies. The electronic databases searched will include PubMed, Pedro, MEDLINE and CINAHL, Google Scholar, an academic search using EBSCOhost via the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal (UKZN), and Cochrane Library. Keywords will be separated by Boolean terms “AND,” “OR,” “NOT.” The final step will be the search of the reference lists. The initial list of keywords will include, but are not limited to: “clinical education,” “training,” “teaching and learning,” “undergraduate physiotherapy education,” “decentralized” OR “distributed,” “community-based,” “community-engaged,” “primary health care,” “physiotherapy”/“physical therapy,” and “curriculum.” A pilot study was conducted to determine the feasibility of the study. The pilot findings showed good feasibility of the study with 118 articles retrieved from PubMed and 16,616 articles obtained from EBSCOhost (Table 2).

    Table 2. Results of a pilot search.
    Keywords searchedDatabaseDate of searchNumber of publications retrieved
    ((((((“Physiotherapy” OR “Physical Therapy”)) AND (“Training” OR “Education” OR “Teaching” OR “Teaching and Learning” OR “Curriculum”))) OR (((“education”) AND “physiotherapy”) AND “undergraduate” AND (Humans[Mesh])) AND (Humans[Mesh]))) OR (((“Decentralized” OR “Distributed” OR “Community- based” OR “Community engaged”)) OR “on the job” AND rural AND”) OR “ AND primary health care AND (Humans[Mesh])) AND (Humans[Mesh])PubMedSeptember 27, 2019118
    ((((((“Physiotherapy” OR “Physical Therapy”)) AND (“Training” OR “Education” OR “Teaching” OR “Teaching and Learning” OR “Curriculum”))) OR (((“education”) AND “physiotherapy”) AND “undergraduate” AND (Humans[Mesh])) AND (Humans[Mesh]))) OR (((“Decentralized” OR “Distributed” OR “Community- based” OR “Community engaged”)) OR “on the job” AND rural AND) OR AND “primary health care” AND (Humans[Mesh])) AND (Humans[Mesh])EBSCOhostSeptember 27, 201916,616, including the following filters: human, (full text, scholarly (peer-reviewed) journal

    Stage 3: Study Selection

    The study research question will be utilized to guide the development of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the proper selection of relevant studies.

    Peer-reviewed articles published in English that focus on the following theory will be included: (1) models of undergraduate physiotherapy community-based clinical education, (2) undergraduate physiotherapy curricula on clinical education, and (3) decentralized clinical training (ie, training conducted away from the university and central training academic hospitals, including rural sites, primary health clinics, community health centers, district hospitals, and regional hospitals).

    Opinion papers on community-based clinical education for undergraduate physiotherapy students will be excluded, such as commentaries on community-based clinical training for undergraduate physiotherapy students.

    Charting of Data

    A data-extracting tool will be created to organize and store all data retrieved from the articles during the scoping review. Two independent reviewers utilizing the sample of the included studies will evaluate this tool. The information from studies will consist of: author, year of publication, site location, study population, institution description (community health center, primary health clinic, hospital, community, home), site description (rural, periurban, or urban), duration of the training at the site, aim or purpose of the study, methodology, essential results, model aspects, and recommendations. This information will be continuously updated throughout the scoping review process. All eligible studies will be uploaded to Mendeley referencing software and replicate studies will be removed. PRISMA guidelines will be used to report the screening results [26].

    Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting Results

    This review will adopt a mixed-method analysis of the results of the selected studies, including both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Extracted data that will be analyzed quantitatively will include numerical summaries of article type, duration of rotation, site description, location (rural, urban, periurban), and the aspects of the model. A descriptive analytical method will be conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 23. Thematic analysis will be used for analyzing the qualitative data from the reviewed studies to synthesize and interpret critical issues and themes arising from the included studies.

    Quality Appraisal

    The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 [25] will be used to appraise the quality of the selected studies, as recommended by Levac et al [24]. Three reviewers (NT, VC, and SC) will be involved in the critical appraisal process. Two reviewers will capture methodological quality criteria, according to MMAT [27]. A third reviewer who is an expert in MMAT application will oversee the complete process, adding rigor to the process. The MMAT allows for a concomitant appraisal of methodological quality of five study categories: qualitative research, randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies [25].

    Ethics Approval

    The study is part of doctoral work in the Department of Health Sciences at UKZN. Ethical approval was obtained from the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee of UKZN (ethical clearance no. HSS/0575/018D).


    Data collection will commence upon protocol publication, and the results can be expected in the following 5 months.


    This scoping review aims to map out existing models of community-based clinical education and highlight their ability to produce socially responsive graduates. There is a global shift toward community-based clinical training of health care professionals with evidence supporting this approach in undergraduate medical education [19,22].

    The undergraduate physiotherapy curriculum needs to produce graduates who possess the competencies of a health practitioner, professional, scholar, health advocate, collaborator, communicator, and leader. Decentralized clinical training has been reported as the best method of developing competent undergraduate students who will be socially accountable and able to advocate for their patients [6,28].

    This scoping review will synthesize the evidence and reveal knowledge gaps to contribute toward the development of a community-based clinical education model for undergraduate physiotherapy students in a South African context.

    Clinical education stakeholders, physiotherapist clinical supervisors in different hospital settings, and academics involved in the training of undergraduates stand to benefit from this scoping review. The review will produce consolidated evidence of various models of community-based clinical education for undergraduate students. This evidence can be employed by stakeholders to design future programs and also form a basis for future research.

    This scoping review will clearly describe the global community-based clinical education models used for the training of undergraduate physiotherapy students. The empirical evidence obtained from this review will be beneficial to stakeholders in health science education, including academics, clinicians, and policymakers, contributing to the ongoing transformation of clinical training.

    Acknowledgments

    NC is funded by the South African National Research Fund (NRF) Black Academics Advancement Programme (BAAP) - First Rand Foundation (FRF) Sabbatical Grant. All views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and have not been influenced by the funder.

    Authors' Contributions

    NC conceptualized the planned methodology of this study and prepared the first draft of the manuscript under the guidance and supervision of VC and SC. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved it for submission to the journal.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 645 KB
    1. Cantatore F, Crane L, Wilmoth D. Defining Clinical Education?: Parallels in Practice. Austral J Clin Educ 2016 Dec;1:1-8 [FREE Full text]
    2. Diab P, Flack P. Benefits of community-based education to the community in South African health science facilities. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med 2013 Apr 23;5(1):474. [CrossRef]
    3. Ernstzen DV, Statham SB, Hanekom SD. Learning experiences of physiotherapy students during primary healthcare clinical placements. Afr J Prim Health Prof Educ 2014 Oct 23;6(2):211. [CrossRef]
    4. Crampton PES, McLachlan JC, Illing JC. A systematic literature review of undergraduate clinical placements in underserved areas. Med Educ 2013 Oct 09;47(10):969-978. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. White S, Humphreys N. Undergraduate physiotherapy students' expectations and perceptions of rural/regional clinical placements. Aust J Rural Health 2014 Aug 13;22(4):172-178. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. de Villiers M, van Schalkwyk S, Blitz J, Couper I, Moodley K, Talib Z, et al. Decentralised training for medical students: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 2017 Nov 09;17(1):196 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Blose S, Chemane NCT, Chetty V, Govender P, Maddocks S. Physiotherapists’ perception of a community-based primary healthcare clinical education approach to undergraduate learning. Afr J Prim Health Prof Educ 2019 Apr 03;11(1):16. [CrossRef]
    8. Cott CA, Mandoda S, Landry MD. Models of integrating physical therapists into family health teams in ontario, Canada: challenges and opportunities. Physiother Can 2011 Jul;63(3):265-275. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Hartman N, Kathard H, Perez G, Reid S, Irlam J, Gunston G, et al. Health Sciences undergraduate education at UCT: a story of transformation. S Afr Med J 2012 Mar 02;102(6):477-480. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta Z, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet 2010 Dec 04;376(9756):1923-1958. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Birden HH, Wilson I. Rural placements are effective for teaching medicine in Australia: evaluation of a cohort of students studying in rural placements. Rural Remote Health 2012;12:2167 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    12. Covington K, Odom C, Heflin S, Gwyer J. Student Team Learning in Practice (STEPs®): An Integrated Clinical Education Collaborative Model. J Phys Ther Educ 2017;31(2):18-29. [CrossRef]
    13. Stiller K, Lynch E, Phillips AC, Lambert P. Clinical education of physiotherapy students in Australia: Perceptions of current models. Austral J Physiother 2004;50(4):243-247. [CrossRef]
    14. Lekkas P, Larsen T, Kumar S, Grimmer K, Nyland L, Chipchase L, et al. No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another: a systematic review. Austral J Physiother 2007;53(1):19-28. [CrossRef]
    15. Campbell LM, Ross AJ, MacGregor RG. The Umthombo Youth Development Foundation, South Africa: Lessons towards community involvement in health professional education. Afr J Prim Health Prof Educ 2016 Mar 26;8(1):50. [CrossRef]
    16. Talib Z, van Schalkwyk S, Couper I, Pattanaik S, Turay K, Sagay AS, et al. Medical Education in Decentralized Settings. Acad Med 2017;92(12):1723-1732. [CrossRef]
    17. Govender P, Chetty V, Naidoo D, Pefile N. Integrated Decentralized Training for Health Professions Education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Protocol for the I-DecT Project. JMIR Res Protoc 2018 Jan 25;7(1):e19 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Mostert-Wentzel K, Africa S, Africa S. Status of undergraduate community-based and public-health physiotherapy education in South Africa. S Afr J Physiother 2013;69(1):26-35. [CrossRef]
    19. Woolley T, Sen Gupta T, Murray R. James Cook University's decentralised medical training model: an important part of the rural workforce pipeline in northern Australia. Rural Remote Health 2016;16(1):3611 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    20. Crosbie J, Gass E, Jull G, Morris M, Rivett D, Ruston S, et al. Sustainable undergraduate education and professional competency. Austral J Physiother 2002;48(1):5-7. [CrossRef]
    21. Swisher L, Woodard L, Quillen W, Monroe AD. Centralized and Decentralized Organizational Models of Interprofessional Education for Physical Therapist and Medical Students. J Phys Ther Educ 2010;24(1):12-18. [CrossRef]
    22. Mlambo M, Dreyer A, Dube R, Mapukata N, Couper I, Cooke R. Transformation of medical education through Decentralised Training Platforms: a scoping review. Rural Remote Health 2018 Mar;18(1):4337 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Method 2005 Feb;8(1):19-32. [CrossRef]
    24. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010 Sep 20;5(1):69 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 user guide. 2018.   URL: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/ [accessed 2019-11-18]
    26. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Daudt HM, van Mossel C, Scott SJ. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team's experience with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013 Mar 23;13(1):48 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Woollard B, Boelen C. Seeking impact of medical schools on health: meeting the challenges of social accountability. Med Educ 2012 Jan;46(1):21-27. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    MMAT: Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses
    UKZN: University of Kwa-Zulu Natal

    Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 01.04.20; peer-reviewed by G Martucci, L Spencer; comments to author 17.06.20; revised version received 29.06.20; accepted 30.06.20; published 20.10.20

    Copyright

    ©Nomzamo Charity Thobekile Chemane, Verusia Chetty, Saul Cobbing. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 20.10.2020.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.