Investigating Care Provided by Physical Therapists Treating People with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To describe the management of rheumatoid arthritis by physical therapists (PTs) in Ontario and to explore factors that influence the delivery of client-centred care. Methods: PTs working in rheumatology asked consecutive, nonsurgical patients to complete standardized assessments at baseline and discharge. PT interventions were compared with those recommended by published clinical practice guidelines. After discharge, patients were mailed the WASCANA Client-Centred Care Survey (WCCS). Results: Twenty-six PTs recruited 53 patients. The mean number of hours of treatment was 7.6 over a mean time frame of 68 days. The most frequent interventions were exercise (100%), education, and physical modalities (both 94.6%). There were important clinical improvements in several outcome measures (effect sizes > 0.3). The Numerical Pain Rating Scale and the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales-2 (AIMS2) pain score improved the most, with effect sizes of > 0.6. Forty-five patients (80%) returned WCCS questionnaires. Mean scores were good (< 2) for five of the six WCCS domain scores and borderline (2.1) for one domain, community integration. Conclusions: Patients reported improved outcomes, especially less pain, suggesting that a pain measure would be useful in evaluating PT interventions for persons with rheumatoid arthritis. In general, PTs provided evidence-based and client-centred care; however, there may be potential to improve care by helping patients more fully integrate into the community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".