Evaluating Wait Time Management Strategies for Canadian Physiotherapy Services: A Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Wait times for publicly-funded physiotherapy (PT) services in Canada — such as those for outpatients recovering from surgery or children with disabilities — are high, which may force people to pay for care or face deteriorating quality of life. Specific waitlist management strategies are needed to address this problem, but there is no review on the subject in Cochrane and much of the current research focuses on reducing wait times in emergency rooms or surgery departments. PT is a different context with more flexibility in appointment structure (ie. length of time or number of patients) and thus more possible strategies to reduce wait times. This scoping review aims to identify which of those have already been studied in the Canadian context. Methods: This review was conducted using Arksey and O’Malley’s 2005 framework. EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, SportDiscus, Canada Commons and Canada Research Index were searched for articles which evaluated wait time management strategies (WTMS) specific for PT services in Canada. A gray literature search of all the PT association and college websites across Canada was also conducted. Results: The eleven studies meeting inclusion criteria were conducted across Canada and evaluated diverse strategies through a range of outcomes. The most frequent were structural/organizational outcomes, but wait times and feedback from professionals were also common. Most often, strategies involved changing how PT services were delivered. Discussion: Further research needs to be done as very few studies were found meeting inclusion criteria. Included studies did not consistently report the context, population, or outcome measurement in enough detail for stakeholders in healthcare to examine the clinical applicability or for future researchers to compare the effectiveness of interventions. No results from the gray literature search were included, suggesting that WTMS for PT are not an area of focus for PT associations and colleges in Canada. Conclusions: There is a need for further evaluation of wait time management strategies in the unique context of PT, with improved reporting to make evidence-based practice feasible. We suggest that stakeholder groups in healthcare should consider wait time management for PT a higher priority and encourage further research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».