Background: Professionalism is defined by the Chartered Society Of Physiotherapy (CSP) as “the qualities, skills, competence and behaviors expected of individuals belonging to any given profession including physiotherapy.” The number of physiotherapy students in India is increasing. Moreover, with the advent of modern technology and commercialism, there is a rising threat to the therapist-patient relationship as well as compromise in the ethical commitment to the field due to stiff competition in the market. Hence, it is essential that the standard of practice should be maintained and should be improvised. The purpose of this study is to find the perceived level of professionalism of post graduate physiotherapy students.  Methods: The cross-sectional survey was done via APTA’S ‘Professionalism In Physical Therapy: Core Values. There are 7 core values with 69 indicators; total score is 345. It has been validated and used previously in India. 100 students were included; 67, 1st year & 33, 2nd year post graduate physiotherapy students of Ahmedabad through convenience sampling. Analysis was done in Microsoft excel 2013.  Results: The mean scores for the core values were as follows: Accountability:40.53±6.37/50; Altruism: 17.98+3.78/25; Compassion/Caring: 43.65±6.62/55; Excellence: 44.01±6.73/55; Integrity: 43.69±6.16/60; Professional Duty: 28.67±4.70/35; Social responsibility: 45.84±7.64/60.Conclusions: Physiotherapy PG students had overall high scores in the core values. Further research is required to understand the current scenario so that appropriate changes can be made in the curriculum and strategies can be formulated for high quality patient care.

Introduction: Reduced endurance of trunk muscles as well as poor hamstring flexibility have been found in subjects with backache. Few studies have explored the variations in core endurance and hamstring flexibility in non-athlete subjects with low back pain and normal individuals in Indian community at large. This study aims at comparing the core endurance and hamstring flexibility of the healthy individuals and subjects with low back pain. Method: This cross-sectional study was conducted in physiotherapy department and community of Ahmedabad. Males and females of 18-65 years with low back pain of any duration and cause were included in Group: A. Subjects with acute/severe back pain where core endurance tests would flare up the pain, diagnosed psychiatric illness, neurological conditions, rheumatic diseases were excluded. Group B had subjects with no back pain. Exclusion criteria was the same for Group: B. Core endurance was assessed with McGill’s core endurance test. Hamstring flexibility was assessed using Sit and reach test. Comparison between the two groups was done using Mann Whitney test and t-test respectively. Results: Total 101 subjects were approached for the study out of which 96 participated in the study. Statistically significant difference was found between the core endurance [U=563.5, p<0.001 for trunk flexor endurance; U=294.5, p<0.001 for trunk extensor endurance U=573.0, p<0.001; U=522.0, p<0.001 for trunk side bridge test (right and left respectively)] and hamstring flexibility (t= -3.063, df=94; p=0.003) in persons with and without low back pain. Conclusion: There is a significant difference in core endurance time and hamstring flexibility in subjects with and without LBP. Key words: Low back pain; Core endurance; sit and reach test; muscle tightness; flexibility.