Identifying Physiotherapist and Patient Expectations in Private Practice Physiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study focused on determining physiotherapist and patient expectations in private practice physiotherapy.Method: The Nominal Group Technique was implemented with separate groups of physiotherapists (n= 37) and patients (n= 26) to identify their expectations of themselves and each other.Results: The most important expectations of physiotherapists related to patient behaviours, including that patients would show them respect and trust, be punctual and compliant, and take an active role in rehabilitation. Conversely, the most important patient expectations were for symptomatic relief, self-management strategies, and "hands on" treatment-all part of the physical domain. When matching expectations, physiotherapists attributed more importance to how they behave with patients, such as providing professional and ethical care, active listening, and being caring and empathic, but patients ranked the nature of the treatment provided by physiotherapists as most important.Conclusions: Based on the findings from this study, we suggest that it is important for physiotherapists to identify patient expectations, and this can be effectively achieved by adopting a patient-centred approach to management.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".