ENPHE
AI in Physiotherapy Education Working Group Knowledge Base
ENPHE Working Group — AI in Physiotherapy Education

A knowledge base for
AI in physiotherapy education
across Europe

This resource supports the integration of AI literacy into physiotherapy higher education across Europe. It brings together the regulatory, ethical, and professional foundations that institutions need to understand, a framework of AI competencies for physiotherapy educators and students, and a practical roadmap for embedding those competencies into any European programme — whether well-resourced or just starting out.

📚

Literature Database

A curated, searchable collection of regulatory documents, ethical frameworks, competency standards, and professional guidelines relevant to AI in physiotherapy education. Entries are searchable and filterable by topic category.

🎯

Competency Framework

An evolving framework of AI competencies for physiotherapy higher education, organized by proficiency level. Each competency is grounded in the literature database and linked directly to supporting references.

🗺️

Implementation Roadmap

A phased roadmap — Explore, Pilot, Embed, Sustain — that any European physiotherapy programme can adapt to integrate AI competencies into their curriculum, with concrete actions linked directly to the competency framework and literature.

How to use this resource

The knowledge base is organized into three interconnected sections. The Literature Database contains the regulatory and ethical foundations; use the search and category filters to locate specific documents. The Competency Framework builds on these foundations — it contains two complementary parts: a student framework across six domains and an educator framework across four domains, both linked to relevant literature. The Implementation Roadmap translates the competency framework into a phased institutional action plan, with each action linked back to the relevant competency domains and literature.

Student proficiency levels (Awareness, Understanding, Application, Integration) are independent of curriculum year. Educator proficiency levels (Developing, Practising, Leading) reflect stages of professional development rather than a linear learning arc.

About the working group

This resource is developed and maintained by the ENPHE Working Group on AI in Physiotherapy Education.

Mission

To develop a shared, evidence-based competency framework that supports physiotherapy higher education institutions across Europe in preparing students and educators for responsible, critical, and effective use of artificial intelligence.

Approach

The working group combines a structured review of regulatory and ethical literature with collaborative competency development across institutions from multiple European countries. Strategic implementation planning follows competency formulation.

Network

Part of the European Network of Physiotherapy in Higher Education (ENPHE). Visit enphe.org for more information.

Literature Database

Regulatory frameworks, ethical guidelines, competency standards, and professional literature on AI in higher education

AI Competency Framework

For physiotherapy higher education — developed by the ENPHE Working Group on AI in Physiotherapy Education

This framework sets out the AI competencies needed in physiotherapy higher education — organised into two complementary parts. The student framework describes what physiotherapy students should know, understand, and be able to do with AI across their programme. The educator framework describes what physiotherapy lecturers and clinical educators need in order to teach, model, and develop those student competencies. Both frameworks are evidence-based and grounded in the literature database. Click any reference chip to jump directly to that document.

AI Competencies for Physiotherapy Students

Six domains organised by proficiency level. Proficiency levels are independent of curriculum year — each institution positions competencies within its own programme structure. Click any literature chip to jump to that reference in the database.

Proficiency levels:
AwarenessKnows that AI exists and has relevance to physiotherapy practice and education
UnderstandingCan explain how AI systems work and what their limitations are
ApplicationCan use AI tools critically and responsibly in defined educational or clinical contexts
IntegrationCan design, evaluate, and lead AI-informed practice and education at programme or institutional level

AI Competencies for Physiotherapy Educators

Four domains covering the competencies physiotherapy lecturers and clinical educators need to teach, model, and develop student AI literacy. Three proficiency levels reflect stages of professional development rather than a linear learning arc.

Proficiency levels:
DevelopingBuilding foundational competence through structured CPD or supported curriculum work; can engage with AI in teaching with scaffolding
PractisingApplies competence consistently and independently across regular teaching, assessment, and professional activity
LeadingShapes the AI literacy environment — contributing to curriculum, mentoring colleagues, engaging with policy, staying at the frontier of developments

Implementation Roadmap

A phased framework any ENPHE institution can adapt to integrate AI competencies into their physiotherapy curriculum

How to use this roadmap. The four phases are not tied to calendar years — they represent stages of institutional readiness. Each institution will move through them at its own pace depending on context, resources, and programme structure. Click the ⓘ button next to any action for a fuller description, concrete examples, and links to relevant competency domains and literature.
Synthesis note — Session 3 (April 2026). The content of this roadmap has been enriched with input from five working groups who completed the 4×4 roadmap grid during Session 3. The following themes were consistent across all groups: AI literacy is the non-negotiable starting point; AI should be a supplement, not a replacement for student thinking; educator training and tool access are the two most concrete early barriers; and institutional policy must be in place before or during Phase 2, not after. Distinctive contributions include a Bloom-like Understand → Apply → Create progression across years (Group 4), student–educator co-creation as an explicit strategy (Group 2), and lifelong learning as a Phase 4 student outcome (Group 3).