“How can we help you?”: results of a scoping review on the perceived needs of people living with chronic pain regarding physiotherapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Physiotherapy is effective to reduce pain and improve the quality of life of people living with chronic pain. To offer high-quality physiotherapy services, these services must be patient-centred and respond to patients' needs. However, few studies seem to target patients' perceived needs, whereas more studies tend to focus on needs assessed by healthcare experts, which are not always in line with patients' perceived needs. In addition, people living with chronic pain are often faced with several health inequities and may have varied perceived needs depending on their personal conditions. To offer services that truly meet patients' needs, it is therefore crucial to understand these needs. This scoping review aims to identify and map the perceived needs of people living with chronic pain towards physiotherapy services. METHODS: To conduct this review, we followed the six stages framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched four databases (Medline, Embase, CINHAL and APA PsycINFO) as well as the grey literature. We included all studies describing the needs, demands, preferences or expectations of adults living with chronic pain towards physiotherapy. We then performed an inductive thematic analysis of the results and discussion sections of these studies to identify the perceived needs. Once those needs were identified, we mapped them into the seven dimensions of the patient-centred healthcare delivery framework. RESULTS: Our review included 96 studies. Various perceived needs were identified through the thematic analysis, such as the needs for an empathetic relationship; for a clear, adapted and supervised exercise program; and for personalized treatment. Our mapping into the patient-centred healthcare delivery framework showed that most studies reported needs associated with the dimensions of interpersonal care, individualized healthcare and professional care. Needs associated with the other dimensions of the framework (access; coordination and continuity; services and facilities; data and information) were less frequently mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review have enabled us to identify and better understand multiple needs perceived by people living with chronic pain regarding physiotherapy services. The perceived needs identified through this scoping review were mapped within the seven dimensions of the Patient-centred healthcare delivery framework.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,040 | 0,131 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,029 | 0,028 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».