English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Context: As health care education evolves, so do the required educational degree levels. In athletic training, the master's degree has traditionally represented the advanced degree option, but clinical doctoral education is relatively new and not well understood. Objective: To explore stakeholders' perceptions of the postprofessional clinical doctorate in athletic training (DAT). Design: Population survey. Patients or Other Participants: Survey participants included 254 faculty members, 150 administrators, 334 clinicians, and 131 employers. Intervention(s): Four surveys designed to gauge perceptions of the DAT. Main Outcome Measure(s): Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe perceptions. Qualitative data from open-ended questions were analyzed inductively and organized into themes. Results: Faculty and administrators were more familiar with various degrees (71.8%–82.3%), whereas clinicians and employers indicated no or little (52.5%–58.0%) familiarity with clinical doctoral degrees. There was discord between faculty and administrators regarding the viability of the DAT as an alternative to the postprofessional master's degree. Faculty believed the DAT would help advance knowledge and clinical skills among practitioners. Administrators believed in increased education and clinical expertise of faculty, increased productivity, and an alternative avenue for hiring faculty for those with a DAT. Hiring concerns, research productivity, friction among degree holders, program expense, and lack of understanding of the degree were negative implications reported by administrators. Clinician interest in pursuing a DAT was divided (47.5% interested, 52.5% not interested). Reasons for pursuing the DAT included increased clinical ability, desire to transition to a faculty role, and advancement. Employers were divided as to whether they would hire a DAT. Employer concerns included lack of adequate compensation and lack of significant difference in clinician skills. Conclusions: Support for the DAT by all stakeholders exists. However, there are concerns and a general lack of understanding about the degree that should be addressed among all stakeholder groups.

Part II: Examining Stakeholder Perceptions of the Postprofessional Clinical Doctoral Degree in Athletic Training