|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****?
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 3, 2002 5:28:00 PM
|
|
|
ChiroGuy
Posts: 63
Joined: January 24, 2002
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
|
Could it be that Bobcat has finally cracked and decided to become a positive contributing member of the site? I guess this gives hope that anyone can change ...
With much hope,
ChiroGuy
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 3, 2002 7:02:00 PM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
Though Bobcat rambles from time to time, and sometimes admittingly speaks over my head, he's always been a valuable, evidence-based contibutor to the forum. Anti-Bobcat spews, though sometimes understandable, are uncalled for.
Let's ALL (myself included) try to take personal responsiblity on the forum to act in a more professional manner in responding to posts that we either don't understand, or don't agree with --- and remember that what is sometimes interpreted as offensive is often meant as a relationship-building attempt a humor. Doesn't always go over well in e-mail.
Drew
Bobcat an all other posters
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 3, 2002 8:15:00 PM
|
|
|
Diane
Posts: 1507
Joined: March 9, 2001
From: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Status: offline
|
...so... let me be clear about something; you (Drew) are suggesting that:
1. the ramblings of this...looneytoon (!)... are "contributions to evidence-based discussion" on this forum? Somehow they encourage respect for science??
2. Bobcat, his bunker, along with his two friends he mentioned (unnamed), plus a handful of apparent admirers, are contributing in some meaningful way to this profession?
3. ...and building a 'rehabedge' professional community that will be the envy of other professions, like the MDs etc? It's mostly always been at the level of a crude video game, except for the Dorko forums.
4. we should all strive to equal the level of Bobcat's sicko prose? Can't go there. Too low a level to fall to.
Soon to leave this pathetic "community" in disgust,
Diane
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 3, 2002 8:45:00 PM
|
|
|
PTstud
Posts: 86
Joined: March 8, 2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
you guys make me sick
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 12:53:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
Diane,
It's 4:00am, and I'm up in pain on lots of drugs following my surgery. Please forgive me if the following doesn't make clear sense, or is laden with spelling errors . . .
That's not what I said at all. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I think that each of us needs to reach deep inside, recognize who we are as a professional, be the evidence or artistic oriented, AND be able to tolerate, communicate, and integrate opinions from the "across the tracks."
In that vein, yes, I do think that Bobcat's contributions are more often than not very productive (despite a tone that is often sarcastic and unproductive) as they are sometimes non-productive to the thread at large. Bobcat's not evil, he's just often misunderstood. I can relate.
And yes, his postings, on occasion, have encouraged me to brush up on my biophysics just to understand what he's talking about. If a RehabEdge member can't get past the ego-bruise and didn't take the learning opportunity for what it was, then he or she may sometimes be self-censoring onself to valuable information that is often directly applicable to our treatments as physical therapists.
I consider Dorko a friend both personally and professionally, and I don't think he'd disagree that I tend to be more evidence-based first, and then artistic oriented than his approach that often tends to be vice-versa. Despite this, I'd like to think that we have a healthy respect for each other and communicate to each other, while integrating each other's comments in the intrests of patient care. He's often given me pause, and I'd hope that I've provided him the same type of intellectual stimulation. We can do that, however, because we respect each other, but I don't think that kind of relationship exists between all science-leaning, and all art-leaning PT's here as, with the exception of Dorko, the art leaning PT's have a much harder time backing up their claims of outcomes and efficacy. I'd like to see change through bridge-building between the two philosophical camps because I think it has real benefit for the profession. Nothing is gained, and no one is motivated when art-based PT's call the science-based PT's "out of touch," or "unable to back up all that reasearch in the clinic," or when science-based PT's charge art-based PT's "incompotent," or "helpful to the patient despite not really knowing if thier treatments may less effective than some other approach." Both charges are largely correct, and both charges are largely unfair and ego-bruising. We as an online community need to "get over it" and seize the oppourtunity to communicate with one another.
If we continue to allow the split to grow, not only here, but within the profession in general, we only hurt ourselves, and ultimately, the patient.
I submit that the potential for this kind of relationship between rehabedge members on the forum is what we should be striving from people on one side of the fence such as Mcap, Hirsch, and myself; to people on the other side of the fence like Dorko, SJ, etc.
So in answer to your final question, no, I don't suggest that you or anyone else, "strive to equal the level of Bobcat's sicko prose?" but I do think that you may be missing out on some great learning opportunities by not sifting through his sarcasm and dark humor. By the same token, he has as much to learn from people like you, and as much as the following may irritate you, you and Bobcat and/or you and Mcap could make for a VERY powerful professional partnership if you could learn to respect each other and get along. The same goes for SJ, often equally frustrated with some of the postings by those guys.
I'd also submit that Bobcat, and often times myself, need to be a little more tolerant and respectful of the clinical artists on the forum. I think I've improved significantly since the inception of this forum, but if you think otherwise, please e-mail at Drewpt@yahoo.com and we can discuss it further.
I have rarely seen any particular poster including Bobcat on one extreme and SJ on the other, produce input here that wasn't in some way shape or form positive in the grand scheme of the thread. I can't speak to other moderators, but it's the reason why I allow threads that I moderate to sometimes twist and turn because censoring anyone restricts the development of that kind of union. Dorko has his own opinions about that, and I understand and respect them, I just don't agree.
This forum, unlike any other, has the unique abilty to evolve into a forum that allows for and tolerates all points of view, artistic-based care and evidence-based decision making . . . but does tend to support wild statements to be made without being questioned. That, in my opinion, is a good thing. Those using CST and strain-counterstrain SHOULD be made to defend the science behind what they do, and people like me, who attack those kinds of BS treatments SHOULD be made to provide references (Johonnson is where you want to start, by the way Scott). Those using CST or SI for kids with autism SHOULD be made to answer for the Rodie studies, or at least read them. That's what professional development is all about --- and self examination is often a bitch.
There should be a place for everyone here, from the artist to the scientist, but I don't agree with the "hippie" approach of "everything in PT is great, your patients all get better and therefore you're a great PT" and not consider the very real probabilty that in many cases our patients get better IN SPITE of what we do.
If those goals don't appeal to you, and you still feel disgusted, then I simply wish you well in your professional endevors. The RehabEdge community will be weaker in your absense, and I hope, therefore, that you'll reconsider the value of the forum . . . as well as the value to you of some members who cause you occastional frustration.
Drew
[This message has been edited by Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT (edited July 04, 2002).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 1:13:00 AM
|
|
|
Mark Hirsch
Posts: 101
Joined: December 11, 2001
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Hi Drew,
I beg to differ with you regarding appropriate posts by Bobcat. The offensive posts from the "ball thread" were deleted from this website by David as per my request and other "evil" (Bobcats words not mine)posts of her/him as per the request of others offended by Bobcats remarks.
I also agree with you that this website could be a quack watch -- but that means that people should be able to post from their experience and from EBM and noone should tell someone else they are an idiot or "go to feline hell you fur ball" -- which is difficult to do given Bobcats falacious comments. When someone plays devils advocate, uses sarcasm, put-downs, and slams the other person contrinuting to threads in this BB that is what is bound to happen.
In my view sometimes PT's don't agree on what is quackery and what is science -- as is the case in all professions. Too bad this BB could be so much more interesting and interactive if there were less mud slinging and more tolerance for others not being liscenced physiotherapists. Very little mud slinging at the NOI site -- fun to interact with people. Oh well. BTW, There are conferences that I go to where people stand up at the end of a talk and tear the speaker apart and then there are those conferences where people agree to disagree and the tone is less falacious -- I disagreed with Bobcats comments regarding use of a Ball to facilitate postural control and "bang" got slammed -- but that is besides the point, isn't it, afterall we have freedom of speech in this country. Nonetheless, I feel there is little or no room for disagreement on this website, especially when it comes to non phzsios and phzsios disagreeing with each other on ways to treat patients -- and that is one reason I believe so few people from other professional groups, let alone professionals from your own profession, contribute here. In my view, this very thread on why PT's don't care or care to contribute shows just what a disaster this BB is.
Bobcat, who are you? Now that you know my identity...I'd appreciate a direct response, if you are capable of that. :}
Mark
Happy 4th of July. I will be in Zurich.
[This message has been edited by Mark Hirsch (edited July 04, 2002).]
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 2:00:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
Mud-slinging has no place here. I agree. I must not have seen the deleted posts. I am with you in disageement with Bobcat's ball-related clinical assertions as well, but must not have seen the inappropriate comments.
My point about Bobcat, is that he's not the only mud-slinger here, and that no one is "evil" in their own mind. I've seen multiple posts from many people, you being the only exception that comes to mind at the moment, whose postings were every bit as inappropriate as Bobcats. I've seen what you're talking about in the past, but I've also seen him contribute in a meaningful way to the forum from time to time, and I'm comfortable overlooking the former for the latter. Not everyone has that mindset I suppose. And at least two of the biggest anti-Bobcat complainers have been, on occasion, every bit as inappropriate as he's been. By my observation, you're just about the only person attacked by Bobcat who has a right to cast stones at him --- myself included.
I think that we ALL need to do a better job of addressing the tone here on the forum and although Bobcat may have been (again, I don't think I saw the "evil posts" that you're talking about), he shouldn't be scapegoated for all the ills of tone on this forum.
I think the tone could be better, but I also think that too many people have fragile egos on this site and cannot tolerate being challenged in even the most professional of manners. Bobcat didn't start out the way that you're describing, and although I don't agree with the way he's apparently conducted himself of late, I certainly understand his professional devolution borne from frustration.
I'm glad to see that David is taking action, and as a forum moderator, please accept my apologies on behalf of RehabEdge if you were offended by Bobcat. I find your postings among the most informative of RehabEdge members, and would hate to see you go!
Drew
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 2:21:00 AM
|
|
|
Mark Hirsch
Posts: 101
Joined: December 11, 2001
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Drew,
I don't intend to leave because of these playground tactics. I know it is not easy being an "outsider" here -- I speak from experience when I say that. Thats part of the challenge of being a neuroscientist/clinician in the field of physiotherapy.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 4:33:00 AM
|
|
|
gilbertthomson
Posts: 33
Joined: July 1, 2002
From: Elka Park, NY USA
Status: offline
|
Instead of just talking about bobcat, could we all look back at the original question on this thread?
Why is such a large percentage of our profession comfortable with mediocrity and why is it so hard to stir up any enthusiasm and participation in learning, and in critically examining what we do? Most importantly, what can we do about it. If you think that here reading the BB are many therapists who DO CARE about our profession, how can we make a difference in this disturbing trend?
What strategies could we come up with to encourage scientific thinking and ongoing high-quality learning in the profession?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 6:10:00 AM
|
|
|
Diane
Posts: 1507
Joined: March 9, 2001
From: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Status: offline
|
Drew, thank you for that lengthy and thoughtful post. Perhaps it reflects your postop condition, but I do appreciate the considerate, sensitive, and non-condescending side of yourself you revealed. (I noticed no cognitive lapses [IMG]http://www.rehabedge.com/forums/smile.gif[/IMG] )
About Bcat, I have to agree with Hisch. I have seen Bcat's perjorative rants deleted many times. Why the webmaster feels he must run around after Bcat with a mop and pail is a mystery.
At the NOI site, I have seen entire threads go bye-bye when the tone starts off wrong. Nastiness is simply nipped in the bud, and therefore thoroughly discouraged, absolutely not allowed to exist. No video game, shoot-from-behind-a-hedge tactics are allowed. This opens up the board for less aggressive people (who might none-the-less have a lot inside their heads) to feel safe posting. New posters are greeted, made to feel welcome, allowed to have a say without anyone jumping on them, and ideas are picked open gently and thoroughly. Different sorts of clinical reasoning are discussed, different ways of learning, different modes of thinking. True learning can take place there without learners being made to feel like know-nothing schmucks. Newcomers and students actually are treated like peers and not talked down to. Butler is often on there himself, talking directly to some point that interests him, not vehemently disagreeing with things from an entrenched position.
I can see how someone (like Bcat) who loves to play dirty and agressively could find it boring. Good. He'll never show up there.
About the fence you mentioned at Rehabedge, too bad it is so well-maintained. (At NOI the fence is low, and changes configuration with almost every topic. Many times it doesn't exist at all.)
I'll wrap up the Bcat part of this post by saying that the overall tone on this BB could be vastly improved (by losing Bcat) and still retain an online leadership role.
At the moment, Gilbert, I would assert that if this BB were turned into a collegial tool instead of a weapon, fewer US PTs would cower into apathetic passivity. (I agree with Bournephysio, it does seem to be a US problem, this one of passivity. I too wonder why? Cultural perhaps?)
Again Drew, thank you for this tiny ray of hope.
Diane
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 7:20:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
All I can say to that is that by being so engrossed in my Ph.D., and being sick, I've not had the time or energy to try to defuse these kinds of things the way I used to. Perhaps I should step down as a moderator, given your activity on NOI, and clear ideas on how to "lower the fence," I think you'd be an excellent choice. I will warn you however that some of the opinions here are so polarized that in my experience, it's not as easy as you'd think.
What do you think? If you like, I'd even begin writing a monthy blurb regarding some topic that you steer me onto, and then just put it out for discussion, and keep my mouth shut until you, as the moderator, ask for me to wrap up the thread with some kind of concluding response.
Interested?
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 7:43:00 AM
|
|
|
gilbertthomson
Posts: 33
Joined: July 1, 2002
From: Elka Park, NY USA
Status: offline
|
I don't mean to imply that I support bobcat's attacks on other BB members, but I just wish we could all focus our discussion on the ISSUES and not on people. I definitely object to bobcat's rude comments directed at Barrett, Diane and others. That's abusing the BB.
On the main theme of this thread: Could the reviewing of continuing education courses be made more rigorous so that quack therapies are weeded out before they become so widespread? Couldn't the APTA or other agencies become more aggressively involved in protecting the profession from this?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 8:09:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
I certainly agree with that Gil. That was the idea behind APTA credntialing of continuing education courses. Of the courses I've given, no agency that I've consulted for has even ever attempted to get my course credentialed. I suppose I should look into that though before continuing to run my mouth on the subject.
I also think that some of that responsiblity should rest upon the individual therapist. That's why PT's need to do more reading, in my opinion. If for no other reason than being able to sort out CEd courses worthy of their money from those taught by pseuodscientific Matt Foley's (e.g. Chris Farley of SNL) of the CST camp, for example.
I think that discussions on listservs and BB's like this help in that regard. What do you think?
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 10:07:00 AM
|
|
|
OSUPT
Posts: 45
Joined: April 15, 2002
Status: offline
|
I realize I'm jumping in here a little late in the discussion, but I wanted to get back to Mr. Duffy's original question. A co-worker and I had a similar discussion a few weeks ago. Both of us are among the last PTs to have graduated with bachelor's degrees, and we both have less than a year experience (so basically, we know nothing in comparison with most of you [IMG]http://www.rehabedge.com/forums/wink.gif[/IMG] ). The conclusion we came to is that most new graduates have good intentions of continuing to study and stay up-to-date with the research. However, when it comes to actually doing it, a lot of them are so burned out from the intense pace of their PT programs and studying for the boards, that they decide to "take a break" from PT stuff for a while. Then they never really get back into the habit of reading journals regularly. Being burned out from school is not an excuse not to try to be the best therapist one can be, but I do think it affects a lot of new PTs.
Perhaps the shift to the MPT programs (and eventually, DPT) will help this somewhat. Having to complete a higher degree will weed out some of the people who just see PT as a quick means to a higher entry-level salary. Also, some of the courses in the bachelor's programs can be taken as prerequisites to the master's programs, leaving time to focus on the clinical courses in more depth. I think it was Mr. Ball who alluded to the idea that those who pursue the higher PT degrees tend to be more oriented towards life-long education (not his exact words, but that was my interpretation).
What else can be done? I think the APTA is on the right track with programs like Members Mentoring Members, the clinical specialist certifications, National PT Month, and so forth. However, a good portion of PTs in the U.S. are not members of the APTA. They see the price of dues and wonder if the services offered are really worth it (not to open up another can of worms). This is where the APTA could stand to improve, IMO -- either figure out a way to lower the cost of dues without decreasing quality, or do a better job of marketing the services provided so that PTs have a clearer picture of how the association can benefit them. Having a higher percentage of PTs as members of the APTA won't necessarily solve the problem, but it might give some therapists the nudge they need to start heading in the evidence-based direction. Comments?
Enjoy the rest of your holiday!
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 12:26:00 PM
|
|
|
jessiew
Posts: 3
Joined: July 3, 2002
From: Cambridge, MA
Status: offline
|
What do physiotherapists think about increasing the requirements to gain entry to the DPT or MPT programs in the United States? I work frequently with P.T.s in the laboratory setting. I find there is often some absense of awareness of higher level logic. Or perhaps analytical proficiency as it pertains to math. These skills can be useful in research situations. Would making a greater demand of students introduce to the profession a greater tendency toward evidence base or quantitative measures? I have read the original thread on the soliton theory. I am uncertain what it means. While I generally agree with Bobcat's extremely lengthy presentation I wonder if the original author(s) intended to present another idea altogether? I think they would benefit to investigate the subject matter. It is rich in conceptual intricacy. Bobcat you remain entertaining and incendiary as usual. You should take care to be kinder to those more sensitive to critical commentary. See you at the other fireworks. ::Jess::
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 7:48:00 PM
|
|
|
chipomalley
Posts: 156
Joined: January 7, 2002
From: Baltimore, MD
Status: offline
|
From what I can tell the therapists that do give a crap are here or somewhere else online reaching out for information and dialogue on the topics at hand. The therapists that post who I feel have valuable things to say are in fact divergent at times and walk different paths to some common place that we know as helping a patient get better.
Unfortunately, there has been a serious intrusion made here in this post, a grave loss of perspective and serious loss of professional courtesy that has damaged our efforts to maintain a community on the internet. I speak of the Bobcat diatribe in this thread and of the several postings in which Bobcat has insulted both the character and efforts of several other clinicians.
I find this reprehensible and I call for an apology to be made to Barrett Dorko. The matter is larger than a debate on critical thinking a reference based debate. The tone of Bobcat's postings have taken on an attack mentality where argument is sought for its own end and where Bobcat seeks to elevate his or her own ego demonstrating an intellectual superiority in the guise of intellectual debate. From what I understand this individual has been posting this way for some time.
It would be my hope that the administrator of this site would take the needed steps to ensure that such behavior will not continue to disparge the efforts of those of us who have no such negative agenda and especially for those of us who are new to this forum or new to the profession. Like other aspects of society, without standards to uphold the natural direction is decline and the work of Bobcat on this site represents a decline in the standards in our profession.
Chip O'Malley, PT, OCS
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 4, 2002 9:28:00 PM
|
|
|
Diane
Posts: 1507
Joined: March 9, 2001
From: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Status: offline
|
I second that motion, Chip. All those in favor of the motion that Chip has made, email the webmaster. If the mailbox is full and your email bounces, contact me and I will email you David's address. (I don't feel quite right about just putting it up....)
Drew, I appreciate the offer to moderate, but must decline for several reasons, all of them personal and not because I don't like this board; I find I like it better in the last day or so.. (Funny how things can change and change fast. [IMG]http://www.rehabedge.com/forums/smile.gif[/IMG] )..so I intend to stick around after all and make the odd post.
OK... back to the original topic now.
Diane
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 5, 2002 2:10:00 AM
|
|
|
Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT
Posts: 271
Joined: September 30, 2001
From: Chapel Hill
Status: offline
|
Okay, here's the thing:
This thread is treading dangerously close to my Ph.D. dissertation research. That's dangerously close because I so despirately want to share my findings to the group on the subject of why APTA non-member physical therapists choose not to belong to the APTA. For me to do so, however, would compromise my ability to publish due to the rules of publication to a peer-reviewed journal.
The best I can do, therefore, is offer bits and pieces of my literature review so as to spark continued conversation in an more in depth manner. I'm particularly interested in what not only Bobcat, Dorko, SJ, Mcap, and Diane have to say about the following, but of some of the lurkers as well. Please feel free to post safely about it, and I'm comfortable with anyone saying anything they wish about what follows, right down to personal attacks, so if any of ya artistic non non-scientists out there feel ya'll feel the need to do that --- here's your chance. I hope that EVERYONE on the forum will find the following interesting, and have something to comment:
National membership percentage in a professional association has long been considered an indicator of the level of cohesiveness or fragmentation of that profession.1 At the time of this study, the most recent data publicly available from the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), showed a mere 34% of licensed physical therapists in the United States to be members of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA).2 Though some researchers have blamed the high cost of membership,2 the bimodal age distribution of members suggested that age-related non-price and price-related factors may have played as significant role as price alone.3
Several researchers have examined the question of professional organization membership with respect to other healthcare disciplines and medical specialties. In 1987, Bailey examined American Nurses’ Association (ANA) membership among first-year baccalaureate nurse graduates from programs in three northeastern states. Survey respondents stated that deans and faculty were more “favorably disposed” regarding ANA membership than were clinical supervisors, head nurses, and peers.4 It is hardly surprising that survey respondents, most of whom were not ANA members, viewed ANA membership as, “valuable for the profession, representing nursing, and promoting standards,” as these activities continue with or without the membership of any one individual.4 Could this kind of thing be fueling APTA non-membership? After all, you don't need to be a member to benefit from the effects of APTA lobbying efforts, CAPTE standards, the existance of state licensing boards, the GUIDE, etc.
It was suggested by Bailey, that at least with respect to nurses, the perception of value of ANA membership was apparently corrupted over time by clinical supervisors and peers within the initial employment environment.4 Do we do this in PT too? Do experienced PT's beat evidence-based practice and professional activity out of them? Do we "eat our young?"
In a more recent study, Hayes, et al. examined, “personal characteristics, practice patterns, salaries and benefits, and organizational membership characteristics,” from a sample of Nurse Practitioners in western Massachusetts. It was stated that, “respondents reported a high degree of organizational membership and participation.”5 What factors influence Nurse Practitioners to join the ANA with greater membership percentages than baccalaureate trained nurses? Could it be that there is a heightened sense of professional pride that influences a sense of responsibility associated with advanced clinical training and/or designation? Could it be a greater desire to assemble in pursuit of autonomous primary care practitioner status? The answers may offer insight upon the profession of physical therapy, where entry-level baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral degrees are viewed by the rank-and-file as equals witnin the clinical environment. Finally, strong consensus among the majority of nurse practitioners to achieve autonomy in healthcare appears to be a primary impetus for ANA membership.5 As such, fragmentation in opinion of rank and file physical therapists regarding the issue of Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) may impact APTA membership percentages. What do ya'll think? Are anti-DPT (e.g. autonamous portal-of-entry, direct access care) at the root of APTA non-membership for some people?
The American College of Radiologists (ACR), found the 1990 membership percentage for American Board of Radiology certified diagnostic radiologists and radiation oncologists to be 74%. Radiologists least likely to be members were those (in order of impact), younger than 45 years of age, women, located in western United states, and removed from clinical work (e.g. as administration, teaching, or research). All factors had a statistically significant effect upon membership independent of other factors, and there were no statistically significant differences in membership percentages between radiologists and oncologists, nor between specialists and generalists.1 If this finding is in any way generalizable to physical therapists, it’s distressing to note that the overwhelming majority of physical therapists are in a cohort of individuals (73% women under the age of 45)6,7 least likley to join a professional organization.
Finally, the New York Physical Therapy Association published an article in the February 2000 issue of Empire State Physical Therapy in which 254 members, 180 former members, seven who were never members, and 11 who failed to indicate their membership status, responded to a membership survey. Member and non-member respondents were typically female, between the ages of 30 and 39. Significant differences in membership status were found between employment status of New York APTA members (76% employed full-time), and nonmembers (44% employed part-time). Furthermore, therapists working in acute care hospitals were more likely than not to be members of the APTA.8 According to the previously described study of radiologists, the cohort of female respondents under the age of 45, which is representative of the physical therapy profession at large, may be demographically defined with characteristics of individuals least likely to join a professional organization in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 5, 2002 3:59:00 AM
|
|
|
jessiew
Posts: 3
Joined: July 3, 2002
From: Cambridge, MA
Status: offline
|
Bobcat will you please stop wasting your time on here. You have work to do. Your expectations are too high and you are scaring the children. I am tacking on an extra 2.75 for this follow up consult.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? - July 5, 2002 4:54:00 AM
|
|
|
gilbertthomson
Posts: 33
Joined: July 1, 2002
From: Elka Park, NY USA
Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andrew M. Ball MS MBA PT:
I consider Dorko a friend both personally and professionally, and I don't think he'd disagree that I tend to be more evidence-based first, and then artistic oriented than his approach that often tends to be vice-versa. Despite this, I'd like to think that we have a healthy respect for each other and communicate to each other, while integrating each other's comments in the intrests of patient care. He's often given me pause, and I'd hope that I've provided him the same type of intellectual stimulation. We can do that, however, because we respect each other, but I don't think that kind of relationship exists between all science-leaning, and all art-leaning PT's here as, with the exception of Dorko, the art leaning PT's have a much harder time backing up their claims of outcomes and efficacy. I'd like to see change through bridge-building between the two philosophical camps because I think it has real benefit for the profession. Nothing is gained, and no one is motivated when art-based PT's call the science-based PT's "out of touch," or "unable to back up all that reasearch in the clinic," or when science-based PT's charge art-based PT's "incompotent," or "helpful to the patient despite not really knowing if thier treatments may less effective than some other approach." Both charges are largely correct, and both charges are largely unfair and ego-bruising.
[END OF QUOTE]
I agree with most of this. However, I'd submit that there are different ways of being "science-based" as alternatives to what you describe. Historically, most brilliant scientific discoveries were not made by those who plodded along in their little narrow field reading only the journals that applied directly to their work. Important contributions were rather made by those who had wide ranging interests across many fields, and who were not afraid to try unusual and novel combinations (such as mathematical approaches to biology etc.) (BTW These same people often were artists, poets or musicians as well as brilliant scientists) I'm just saying you can't write off someone like Barrett as "art-based" because he doesn't fit your preconceived idea of a "science-based therapist". There's more to science than you would imagine, and with the current fragmentation of science into tiny specialties, the work of INTEGRATING what is known is more important than ever.
- Gilbert
[This message has been edited by gilbertthomson (edited July 05, 2002).]
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.109
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> Re: Why don't most PT's give a ****? 
