Dataset Information

Selectivity of physiotherapist programs in the United States does not differ by institutional funding source or research activity level.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study aimed to compare selectivity characteristics among institution characteristics to determine differences by institutional funding source (public vs. private) or research activity level (research vs. non-research).

Methods

This study included information provided by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) and the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy. Data were extracted from all students who graduated in 2011 from accredited physical therapy programs in the United States. The public and private designations of the institutions were extracted directly from the classifications from the 'CAPTE annual accreditation report,' and high and low research activity was determined based on Carnegie classifications. The institutions were classified into four groups: public/research intensive, public/non-research intensive, private/research intensive, and private/non-research intensive. Descriptive and comparison analyses with post hoc testing were performed to determine whether there were statistically significant differences among the four groups.

Results

Although there were statistically significant baseline grade point average differences among the four categorized groups, there were no significant differences in licensure pass rates or for any of the selectivity variables of interest.

Conclusion

Selectivity characteristics did not differ by institutional funding source (public vs. private) or research activity level (research vs. non-research). This suggests that the concerns about reduced selectivity among physiotherapy programs, specifically the types that are experiencing the largest proliferation, appear less warranted.

SUBMITTER: Riley SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4835741 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Selectivity of physiotherapist programs in the United States does not differ by institutional funding source or research activity level.

Riley Sean P SP Covington Kyle K Landry Michel D MD McCallum Christine C Engelhard Chalee C Cook Chad E CE

Journal of educational evaluation for health professions 20160415

<h4>Purpose</h4>This study aimed to compare selectivity characteristics among institution characteristics to determine differences by institutional funding source (public vs. private) or research activity level (research vs. non-research).<h4>Methods</h4>This study included information provided by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) and the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy. Data were extracted from all students who graduated in 2011 from accredited ...[more]

PMID: 27079201

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInstitutional-level disparities in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) survival may be driven by reversible differences in care-delivery processes. We quantified the impact of differences in readily identifiable quality metrics on long-term survival disparities in resected NSCLC.Research questionHow do reversible differences in oncologic quality of care contribute to institutional-level disparities in early-stage NSCLC survival?Study design and methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients in the National Cancer Data Base who underwent NSCLC resection from 2004 through 2015 within institutions categorized as Community, Comprehensive Community, Integrated Network, Academic, and National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Programs. We estimated percentages and adjusted ORs for six potentially avoidable poor-quality markers: incomplete resection, nonexamination of lymph nodes, nonanatomic resection, non-evidence-based use of adjuvant chemotherapy, non-evidence-based use of adjuvant radiation therapy, and 60-day postoperative mortality. By sequentially eliminating patients with poor-quality markers and calculating adjusted hazard ratios, we quantified their overall survival impact.ResultsOf 169,775 patients, 7%, 46%, 10%, 24%, and 12% underwent surgery at Community, Comprehensive Community, Integrated Network, Academic, and NCI-Designated Cancer Programs, with 5-year overall survival rates of 52%, 56%, 58%, 60% and 66%, respectively. After the sequential elimination process, using NCI-Designated Cancer Centers as a reference, the adjusted hazard ratio for 5-year overall survival changed from 1.47 (95% CI, 1.41-1.53), 1.29 (95% CI, 1.25-1.33), 1.18 (95% CI, 1.14-1.23), and 1.20 (95% CI, 1.16-1.24) for Community, Comprehensive Community, Integrated Networks, and Academic Cancer Programs to 1.35 (95% CI, 1.28-1.42), 1.22 (95% CI, 1.17-1.26), 1.16 (95% CI, 1.11-1.22), and 1.17 (95% CI, 1.12-1.21), respectively (P < .001 for all comparisons with NCI-designated programs). Differences in quality of surgical resection and postoperative care accounted for 11% to 26% of the interinstitutional survival disparities.InterpretationTargeting six readily identified poor-quality markers narrowed, but did not eliminate, institutional survival disparities. The greatest impact was in community programs. Residual factors driving persistent institution-level long-term NSCLC survival disparities must be characterized to eliminate them.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to characterize clinician-scientists in ophthalmology and identify factors associated with successful research funding, income, and career satisfaction.DesignCross-sectional study.MethodsA survey was conducted of clinician-scientists in ophthalmology at US academic institutions between April 17, 2019, and May 19, 2019. Collected information including 1) demographic data; 2) amount, type, and source of startup funding; first extramural grant; and first R01-equivalent independent grant; 3) starting and current salaries; and 4) Likert-scale measurements of career satisfaction were analyzed using multivariate regression.ResultsNinety-eight clinician-scientists in ophthalmology were surveyed across different ages (mean: 48 ± 11 years), research categories, institutional types, geographic regions, and academic ranks. Median startup funding ranged from $50-99k, and median starting salaries ranged from $150-199k. A majority of investigators (67%) received their first extramural award from the National Eye Institute, mainly through K-award mechanisms (82%). The median time to receiving their first independent grant was 8 years, mainly through an R01 award (70%). Greater institutional startup support (P = .027) and earlier extramural grant success (P = .022) were associated with earlier independent funding. Male investigators (P = .001) and MD degreed participants (P = .008) were associated with higher current salaries but not starting salaries. Overall career satisfaction increased with career duration (P = .011) but not with earlier independent funding (P = .746) or higher income (P = .300).ConclusionsSuccess in research funding by clinician-scientists in ophthalmology may be linked to institutional support and earlier acquisition of extramural grants but does not impact academic salaries. Nevertheless, career satisfaction among clinician-scientists improves with time, which is not necessarily influenced by research or financial success.

Dataset Information

Selectivity of physiotherapist programs in the United States does not differ by institutional funding source or research activity level.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Selectivity of physiotherapist programs in the United States does not differ by institutional funding source or research activity level.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets