Critical physiotherapy: a ten-year retrospective.

Critical physiotherapy has been a rapidly expanding field over the last decade and could now justifiably be called a professional sub-discipline. In this paper we define three different but somewhat interconnected critical positions that have emerged over the last decade that share a critique of physiotherapy's historical approach to health and illness, while also diverging in the possibilities for new forms of practice and thinking. These three positions broadly align with three distinctive philosophies: approaches that emphasize lived experience, social theory, and a range of philosophies increasingly referred to as the "posts". In this paper we discuss the origins of these approaches, exploring the ways they critique contemporary physiotherapy thinking and practice. We offer an overview of the key principles of each approach and, for each in turn, suggest readings from key authors. We conclude each section by discussing the limits of these various approaches, but also indicate ways in which they might inform future thinking and practice. We end the paper by arguing that the various approaches that now fall under the rubric of critical physiotherapy represent some of the most exciting and opportune ways we might (re)think the future for the physiotherapy profession and the physical therapies more generally.

Berlin in Motion: Interprofessional teaching and learning for students in the fields of medicine, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and nursing (INTER-M-E-P-P).

AIM: The Berlin project "Interprofessional teaching and learning in medicine, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and nursing" (INTER-M-E-P-P) pursues the goal of developing and testing interprofessional courses in an exemplary manner, and then implement these into their regular study programs. METHOD: Under the direction of a steering committee of the participating institutions, professions and status groups, interprofessional courses were designed, carried out and evaluated. Specific to this project are the participation of students in the steering committee, and the accompanying of external supervision. The evaluation integrates the perspectives of all project participants, and combines quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: INTER-M-E-P-P established cooperative structures between the participating universities and programs. Three courses were designed, taught and evaluated in an interprofessional manner. The various curricula, organizational patterns and locations of the study paths led to a great need for resources in regard to planning and implementation. This process can be made difficult by any stereotypes or preconceptions inherent to those doing the planning; however, under external supervision, the individual professional viewpoints can still be broadened and enriched. CONCLUSION: A sustainable implementation of interprofessional education into the curricula of health science study programs is currently complicated by barriers such as different geographical locations and differing university regulations concerning study and testing. Implementation will require long-term support at the university as well as at political levels.