Objectives: To establish the supervision models used during physiotherapy practice placements and to determine student and practice educators’ evaluations of the quality of these placements. Design: Cross-sectional study set in clinical sites providing placements for physiotherapy students in Ireland. Participants: Practice educators and students completing placements in 2015/16. Outcome Measure: Questionnaire which measured 18 indicators linked to quality assured placements. Eight additional indicators in the practice educator questionnaire addressed the overall feasibility of the supervision model. Two open-ended questions captured comments on the benefits and challenges of each model. Results: The overall response rate was 72% (112/155). The majority (75%, n = 84) of participants reported a 1:1 (one student: one educator) model of supervision. Fourteen percent (n = 16) reported a 1.2 (one student: two educators) model and 9% (n = 10) a 2.1 (two students: one educator) model. There was generally positive agreement with the questionnaire indicating that all placements, irrespective of supervision model were positively evaluated by participants. Students, however, indicated a more negative evaluation of the placement than practice educators in indictors related to communication, the provision of feedback, establishing an effective relationship with their educator and diversity of available learning opportunities. Indicators relating to productivity and the placement representing an efficient use of resources and personnel received more negative or equivocal ratings by educators. Conclusions: While the 1.1 model remains the most widely used supervision model in physiotherapy practice education, other models also score positively, offering choice to placement providers when determining the model that best suits their service.

To assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of an active break designed to disrupt prolonged sitting in university students. Participants: Students attending lectures in Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Methods: Participants took part in an active break, which consisted of following a short exercise video lasting ∼4 min. They then completed a validated questionnaire consisting of 12 statements with two open-ended questions capturing likes/dislikes. Results: Overall 106 (response rate 96%) predominately female (83%, n = 87), health sciences students (91%, n = 96) participated. Percentage agreement ranged from 93.4% (n = 99) to 96.2% (n = 102) for acceptability, 84.9% (n = 90) to 93.4% (n = 99) for appropriateness, and 80.2% (n = 85) to 96.2% (n = 102) for feasibility. Space constraints and warm temperatures impacted negatively. Conclusion: An active break delivered during lectures is an acceptable and feasible intervention to disrupt sitting in students. Further investigation using a broader representation of the university population is needed prior to implementation.

Objectives: The objective of the study was to investigate student and practice educator evaluations of practice placements using a structured 2 to 1 supervision and implementation model. Design: Cross-sectional pilot study set in clinical sites providing placements for physiotherapy students in Ireland. Participants: Students and practice educators completing a 2.1 peer placement between 2013 and 2015 participated. Outcome measure: A self-reported questionnaire which measured indicators linked to quality assured placements was used. Three open-ended questions captured comments on the benefits and challenges associated with the 2 to 1 model. Results: Ten students (10/20; 50% response rate) and 10 practice educators (10/10; 100% response rate) responded to the questionnaire. Student responses included four pairs of students and one student from a further two pairs. There was generally positive agreement with the questionnaire indicating that placements using the 2 to 1 model were positively evaluated by participants. There were no significant differences between students and practice educators. The main benefits of the 2 to 1 model were shared learning experiences, a peer supported environment, and the development of peer evaluation and feedback skills by students. A key component of the model was the peer scripting process which provided time for reflection, self-evaluation, and peer review. Conclusions: 2 to 1 placements were positively evaluated by students and educators when supported by a structured supervision model. Clear guidance to students on the provision of peer feedback and support for educators providing feedback to two different students is recommended.

Introduction: Physical inactivity is a major global issue affecting health. Promoting, supporting and encouraging physical activity amongst community-dwelling adults is essential. An intermediary is a clinical or non-clinical professional based in primary care, community or voluntary settings. They support individuals referred to them to connect with appropriate community services with the goal of improving health and wellbeing. This may be a promising method to establish a connection to local physical activity and exercise; however the process has been poorly described to date. Objective: The objectives of this scoping review will be to identify and summarise the literature describing the process of connecting community-dwelling adults to an intermediary, the characteristics of these adults, the processes (role, practice and procedure) of an intermediary in connecting these adults to local physical activity and exercise opportunities, and to map these processes of connection to outcomes. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the scoping review methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute. A comprehensive search strategy will identify relevant studies in Embase, Medline, Web of Science and CINAHL, along with a structured grey literature search. Studies which describe an intermediary connecting community-dwelling adults (aged ≥18 years) to local physical activity and exercise will be included. Data will be charted and narratively summarised. Intermediary processes will be mapped to outcomes related to physical activity, and the PAGER (patterns, advances, gaps, evidence for practice and research recommendations) framework will be used to identify evidence gaps and research recommendations. Conclusions: This scoping review will be the first to describe the process of an intermediary connecting community dwelling adults to local physical activity and exercise. This review will identify, map and summarise the existing research on the processes and outcomes. The results will also identify any evidence gaps and will guide future research.