File
Mistry K1, Yonezawa E1, Milne N1
1Bond University - Institute of Health and Sport, Physiotherapy Department, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Gold Coast, Australia
Background: No documented standard or core competencies exist for paediatric curriculum in entry-level physiotherapy programs in Australia. Consequently, extensive variability is thought to exist amongst Australian entry-level physiotherapy programs, in teaching methods used, and learning outcomes achieved, when preparing entry-level physiotherapists to work safely and effectively with children.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the landscape of paediatric curriculum in Australian entry-level physiotherapy programs by firstly quantifying paediatric-specific learning objectives and assessment items published on university websites, and secondly to identify; i) paediatric curriculum content covered and to what extent; ii) the perceived importance of paediatric content by university academics who teach courses inclusive of paediatric content; iii) the mode of delivery of paediatric curriculum and assessment and; iv) the strengths, weaknesses, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of paediatric curriculum.
Methods: A web-based desktop audit was carried out to review the published curriculum and learning objectives for each university's paediatric curriculum with information found on their website at the time of the audit. After receiving ethical approval from Bond University, Human Research Ethics Committee (RO16162) an online cross-sectional survey was administered via Survey Monkey to universities offering entry-level physiotherapy programs throughout Australia in November of 2017. Closed and open-ended questions were asked to obtain quantitative and qualitative responses. A Likert scale was used to determine level of content coverage and perceived level of importance for content areas. Data were analysed using SPSS version 24. Open-ended responses were thematically analysed to identify key themes for strengths, weaknesses and facilitators to the implementation of paediatric curriculum.
Results: All (n=20, 100%) entry-level programs were noted to use the terms lifespan, child and/or paediatrics somewhere in at least one of their subject descriptors. Forty-five percent (n=9) of the universities did not use the terms lifespan, child or paediatric in their published learning objectives. Eight (40%) universities offered a paediatric stand-alone course. Sixty-five (13/20) percent of universities invited, responded to the survey. For paediatric conditions the perceived level of importance was predominately higher than its course content coverage for 19 of the 31 conditions surveyed. Key barriers identified to the implementation of paediatric curriculum were: timetabling challenges, crowded curriculum, lack of prioritisation of paediatric curriculum space, limited financial resources, lack of qualified staff and inadequate paediatric placement availability. Stand-alone paediatric subjects including case-based learning and practical experiences were identified as facilitators to be the most effective method of teaching within the curriculum.
Conclusion(s): The results of this survey provide the physiotherapy community with the views of paediatric physiotherapy academic educators regarding the content, perceived need to expand content delivery in identified clinical areas, and the barriers and facilitators to implementing paediatric content in Australian entry-level physiotherapy programs.
Implications: Findings from this study may help inform the development of minimum standards for paediatric-specific knowledge, skills and attributes to be developed with students in entry-level physiotherapy curriculum in Australia. Further research exploring similar questions with paediatric physiotherapy clinicians would complement the findings of this study.
Keywords: Paediatric, Physiotherapy, Curriculum
Funding acknowledgements: No funding was obtained to support this research.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the landscape of paediatric curriculum in Australian entry-level physiotherapy programs by firstly quantifying paediatric-specific learning objectives and assessment items published on university websites, and secondly to identify; i) paediatric curriculum content covered and to what extent; ii) the perceived importance of paediatric content by university academics who teach courses inclusive of paediatric content; iii) the mode of delivery of paediatric curriculum and assessment and; iv) the strengths, weaknesses, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of paediatric curriculum.
Methods: A web-based desktop audit was carried out to review the published curriculum and learning objectives for each university's paediatric curriculum with information found on their website at the time of the audit. After receiving ethical approval from Bond University, Human Research Ethics Committee (RO16162) an online cross-sectional survey was administered via Survey Monkey to universities offering entry-level physiotherapy programs throughout Australia in November of 2017. Closed and open-ended questions were asked to obtain quantitative and qualitative responses. A Likert scale was used to determine level of content coverage and perceived level of importance for content areas. Data were analysed using SPSS version 24. Open-ended responses were thematically analysed to identify key themes for strengths, weaknesses and facilitators to the implementation of paediatric curriculum.
Results: All (n=20, 100%) entry-level programs were noted to use the terms lifespan, child and/or paediatrics somewhere in at least one of their subject descriptors. Forty-five percent (n=9) of the universities did not use the terms lifespan, child or paediatric in their published learning objectives. Eight (40%) universities offered a paediatric stand-alone course. Sixty-five (13/20) percent of universities invited, responded to the survey. For paediatric conditions the perceived level of importance was predominately higher than its course content coverage for 19 of the 31 conditions surveyed. Key barriers identified to the implementation of paediatric curriculum were: timetabling challenges, crowded curriculum, lack of prioritisation of paediatric curriculum space, limited financial resources, lack of qualified staff and inadequate paediatric placement availability. Stand-alone paediatric subjects including case-based learning and practical experiences were identified as facilitators to be the most effective method of teaching within the curriculum.
Conclusion(s): The results of this survey provide the physiotherapy community with the views of paediatric physiotherapy academic educators regarding the content, perceived need to expand content delivery in identified clinical areas, and the barriers and facilitators to implementing paediatric content in Australian entry-level physiotherapy programs.
Implications: Findings from this study may help inform the development of minimum standards for paediatric-specific knowledge, skills and attributes to be developed with students in entry-level physiotherapy curriculum in Australia. Further research exploring similar questions with paediatric physiotherapy clinicians would complement the findings of this study.
Keywords: Paediatric, Physiotherapy, Curriculum
Funding acknowledgements: No funding was obtained to support this research.
Topic: Paediatrics; Education: methods of teaching & learning
Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: Bond University
Ethics committee: Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee (BUHREC)
Ethics number: RO16162
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
