Factors influencing interprofessional practices of physiotherapists working in private settings with people with low back pain: a qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: Collaboration and interprofessional practices are highly valued in health systems everywhere, partly based on the rationale that they improve outcomes of care for people with complex health problems, such as low back pain. Research in the area of low back pain also supports the involvement of different health professionals in the interventions for people who present this condition. The aim of this studywas to identify factors influencing the interprofessional practices of physiotherapists working in private settings with people with low back pain. Relevance: Physiotherapists, like other health professionals, are encouraged to engage in interprofessional practices in their dailywork. However, to date, very little is known of their interprofessional practices, especially in private settings. Understanding physiotherapists' interprofessional practices and their influencing factors will notably advance knowledge relating to the organisation of physiotherapy services for people with low back pain. Participants: Participants in this study were 13 physiotherapists including 10 women and 3 men, having between 3 and 22 years of professional experience, and working in one of 10 regions of the Province of Quebec (Canada). In order to obtain maximal variation in the perspectives, participants were selected using a recruitment matrix including three criteria: duration of professional experience, work location, and physical proximity with other professionals. Methods: Thiswas a descriptive qualitative study using faceto- face semi-structured interviews as the main method of data collection. An interview guide was developed based on an evidence-derived frame of reference. Each interview lasted between 55 and 95 minutes and was transcribed verbatim. Analysis: Qualitative analyses took the form of content analysis, encompassing data coding and general thematic regrouping. NVivo version 8 was used to assist data organisation and analysis. Results: Multiple factors influencing the interprofessional practices of physiotherapists were identified. The main factors include the consulting person's health condition, the extent of knowledge on health professionals' roles and fields of practice, the proximity and availability of professional resources, as well as daily work schedules. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the influence of multiple factors on physiotherapists' interprofessional practices, including professional practice and organisational issues. However, further research on the interprofessional practices of physiotherapists is still required. Research priorities targeting the views of other health professionals, as well as those of services users, would enhance our comprehension of interprofessional practices of physiotherapists. Implications: This study provides new insights that improve our understanding of the interprofessional practices of physiotherapists working in private settings with people with low back pain, more specifically on the factors influencing these practices. Based on our findings, implementing changes such as improving current and future health professionals' knowledge of the fields and roles of other health professionals through training may contribute to positively influencing interprofessional practices. Keywords: Interprofessional practices; Private practice; Low back pain Funding acknowledgements: This research was supported in part by a B.E. Schnurr Memorial Fund Research Grant administered by the Physiotherapy Foundation of Canada, as well as from a clinical research partnership in physiotherapy between the Quebec Rehabilitation Research Network (REPAR) and the Ordre professionnel de la physiothérapie du Québec (OPPQ). KP received doctoral-level scholarships from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST). CE Dionne is a FRSQ senior Research Scholar. Ethics approval: This project was approved by the ethics research committee of the Institut de réadaptation en déficience physique de Québec.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».