Physiotherapists' Perceptions of Their Role in the Rehabilitation Management of Individuals with Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine physiotherapists' perceptions of their role in the rehabilitation management of individuals with obesity. METHODS: A Web-based survey was conducted in 2008. Participants were recruited through the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (CPA) via electronic communication and were eligible if they had entry level to practice qualifications and were residents of Canada. The online questionnaire consisted of 61 statements pertaining to potential PT roles, barriers, and learning needs, developed using the framework of CPA's position statement on obesity. Frequencies were computed for all Likert-scale response items on the questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 851 physiotherapists, representative of CPA membership, participated in the study. There was strong agreement that physiotherapists have a role to play in the management of clients who are obese through exercise interventions (96%), mobility training (97%), and cardiorespiratory programmes for impairments associated with obesity (95%). Respondents were less clear about their role in the assessment of body fat or patients' weight loss. Lack of client motivation was identified as a barrier to treatment. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapists were clear that they see their role as largely focused on exercise and education to treat conditions associated with obesity. These are important components but do not by themselves constitute an overall management plan. Physiotherapists were clear that they see their role as largely focused on exercise and education to treat conditions associated with obesity. These are important components but do not by themselves constitute an overall management plan.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".