Portfolios are embraced extensively in higher professional education as effective tools for students to represent their learning and help prepare them for future practice. They are very diverse, used for both formative and summative purposes; however, concerns are raised that the current emphasis on academic standards and/or the focus on employability may lead to the perception of portfolios simply as means to portray achievements. This paper argues that contemporary portfolios in digital environments can readily facilitate both purposes. It conceptualises a whole-of-programme approach to the use of portfolios in which consideration is given to the need to bring curation skills and feedback processes to the forefront of portfolio practices. For teachers considering these issues, a planning framework for the design of programme-wide portfolios is proposed.

Background: Weakness of the intrinsic foot muscles is thought to produce deformity, disability and pain. Assessing intrinsic foot muscles in isolation is a challenge; however ultrasound might provide a solution. The aims of this study were to assess the reproducibility of assessing the size of abductor halluces (AbH) and the medial belly of flexor hallucis brevis (FHBM) muscles, and identify their relationship with toe strength, foot morphology and balance.Methods: Twenty one participants aged 26–64 years were measured on two occasions for muscle cross‐sectional area using a Siemens Acuson X300 Ultrasound System with 5‐13 MHz linear array transducer. Great toe flexor strength was measured by pedobarography, the paper grip test and hand‐held dynamometry. Foot morphology was assessed by foot length, truncated foot length, Foot Posture Index (FPI) and dorsal arch height. Balance was measured by the maximal step test. Intra‐class correlation coefficients (ICC_3,1) were used to evaluate intra‐rater reliability. Pearson's correlation coefficients were performed to assess associations between muscle size and strength, morphology and balance measures. To account for the influence of physical body size, partial correlations were also performed controlling for truncated foot length.Results: Intra‐rater reliability was excellent for AbH (ICC_3,1 = 0.97) and FHBM (ICC_3,1 = 0.96). Significant associations were found between cross‐sectional area of AbH and great toe flexion force measured standing by pedobarography (r = .623, p = .003),), arch height measured sitting (r = .597, p = .004) and standing (r = .590, p = .005), foot length (r = .582, p = 006), truncated foot length (r = .580, p = .006), balance (r = .443, p = .044), weight (r = .662, p = .001), height (r = .559, p = .008), and BMI (r = .502, p = .020). Significant associations were found between cross‐sectional area of FHBM and FPI (r = .544, p = .011), truncated foot length (r = .483, p = .027) and foot length (r = .451, p = .040). Significant partial associations were found between AbH and great toe flexion force in standing by pedobarography (r = .562, p = .012) and FHBM and the FPI (r = .631, p = .003).Conclusions: Measuring the cross‐sectional area of AbH and FHBM with ultrasound is reproducible. Measures of strength, morphology and balance appear to relate more to the size of AbH than FHBM. After controlling for physical body size, cross‐sectional area of AbH remained a significant correlate of great toe flexor strength and might be a useful biomarker to measure early therapeutic response to exercise.

Background: With the increasing availability of information, patients are becoming more informed about radiology procedures and requesting imaging studies. This qualitative study aims to explore factors that influence general practitioners' (GPs) decisions to fulfil patient requests for imaging studies during clinical consultation.Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 10 GPs working across five private medical centres in Northwest Sydney. Conventional content analysis was used with emergent themes to identify GPs perspectives.Results: Six themes stood out from the interviews with GPs fulfilling patient requests for imaging studies. They included four pertaining to patient factors: patient expectations, ‘therapeutic scans’, ‘impressive labels’ and entitled. Two further themes pertained to the GP perspective and included defensive medicine, and ‘new patients’. Requests are fulfilled from anxious or health‐obsessed patients, with GPs worrying about litigation if they refuse. However, GPs decline requests from patients with entitlement attitudes or during first visits.Discussion: The findings suggest that GPs struggle to balance their responsibilities as gatekeepers of imaging with patients' expectations of request fulfilment. Clear guidelines on the appropriate use of diagnostic imaging and its limitations could help patients understand its proper use and ease anxiety. Additionally, education and training for GPs could help them manage patient expectations and provide appropriate care.Patient Contributions: Patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experiences or members of the public were not directly involved in the design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the study. However, our study was conducted in primary care facilities where the GPs were interviewed about patients' requests for diagnostic imaging based on their own initiatives. GPs' perspectives in managing patient expectations and healthcare utilisation were explored within the Australian Medicare system, where medical imaging and image‐guided procedures come at little to no cost to the individual. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of the challenges faced by GPs in dealing with patient consumerism and requests for diagnostic imaging, as well as factors influencing request fulfilment or denial. Insights gained from this study may inform future research about delivering patient‐centred care within a similar context.

Background: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound across breast densities in women recalled for assessment. Methods: A total of 482 women recalled for assessment from January 2017 to December 2019 were selected for the study. Women met the inclusion criteria if they had undergone DBT, ultrasound and had confirmed biopsy results. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and AUC for DBT and ultrasound. Results: In dense breasts, DBT showed significantly higher sensitivity than ultrasound (98.2% vs. 80%; p < 0.001), but lower specificity (15.4% vs. 55%; p < 0.001), PPV (61.3% vs. 71%; p = 0.04) and AUC (0.568 vs. 0.671; p = 0.001). In non-dense breasts, DBT showed significantly higher sensitivity than ultrasound (99.2% vs. 84%; p < 0.001), but no differences in specificity (22% vs. 33%; p = 0.14), PPV (69.2% vs. 68.8%; p = 0.93) or AUC (0.606 vs. 0.583; p = 0.57). Around 73% (74% dense and 71% non-dense) and 77% (81% dense and 72% non-dense) of lesions assigned a RANZCR 3 by DBT and ultrasound, respectively, were benign. Conclusion: DBT has higher sensitivity, but lower specificity and PPV than ultrasound in women with dense breasts recalled for assessment. Most lesions rated RANZCR 3 on DBT and ultrasound are benign and may benefit from short interval follow-up rather than biopsy.