Use of low-back pain guidelines by occupational therapists: A qualitative study of barriers and facilitators
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Identify barriers and facilitators related to the use of low-back pain guidelines as perceived by occupational therapists (OTs). METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: A qualitative approach was used. Nine OTs with varied characteristics were randomly selected. Participants were asked to use the guidelines with at least two clients. Semi-structured interviews were done to identify barriers and facilitators related to use. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed. RESULTS: Participants agreed with the guidelines, found them compatible with their current practice, and believed using them would help in preventing persistent disability. Some questioned if their work organization, based on group therapy, would limit their use of the guidelines. Because of the guidelines' biopsychosocial perspective, they anticipated problems regarding client expectations and collaboration with other health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Participating OTs raised few barriers related to them. Barriers were mostly related to client expectations, work organization and peers. It appears the guidelines would be easily implemented by OTs, but environmental elements could limit this.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it