Use of Clinical Anatomy Resources by Musculoskeletal Outpatient Physiotherapists in Australian Public Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate how musculoskeletal outpatient physiotherapists in public hospitals interact with and perceive clinical anatomy resources in the workplace. METHOD: This cross-sectional study used a postal survey sent to musculoskeletal outpatient physiotherapists in 64 Australian public hospitals. Survey questions examined demographics, qualifications, experience, types of resources used, whether resources meet requirements, and what improvements could be made to current resources. RESULTS: A total of 193 physiotherapists responded (75% response rate; 60% female), of whom 49% were age 35 years or younger; 67% had only an undergraduate qualification, and 37% had practised for 5 years or less. More experienced physiotherapists used resources significantly less frequently ([odds ratio]=1.35; 95% CI, 1.17-1.57), and we found no significant associations between preference for online versus printed resources and age, sex, qualifications, or experience. Trends included less experienced physiotherapists identifying the absence of online access as a barrier to resource use and provision of improved online facilities as necessary to improve access to clinical anatomy resources. CONCLUSION: RESULTS indicate distinct trends in physiotherapists' use of clinical anatomy resources, including a desire for improved online resource access on the part of less experienced physiotherapists. The findings are relevant to hospital outpatient clinics, particularly those that employ less experienced physiotherapists.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".