Integrating physiotherapists within primary health care teams: perspectives of family physicians and nurse practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international literature suggests a number of benefits related to integrating physiotherapists into primary health care (PHC) teams. Considering the mandate of PHC teams in Canada, emphasizing healthy living and chronic disease management, a broad range of providers, inclusive of physiotherapists is required. However, physiotherapists are only sparsely integrated into these teams. This study explores the perspectives of "core" PHC team members, family physicians and nurse practitioners, regarding the integration of physiotherapists within Ontario (Canada) PHC teams. Twenty individual semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim, and then analyzed following an iterative process drawing from an interpretive phenomenological approach. Five key themes emerged which highlighted "how physiotherapists could and do contribute as team members within PHC teams particularly related to musculoskeletal health and chronic disease management". The perceived value of physiotherapists within Ontario, Canada PHC teams was a unanimous sentiment particularly in terms of musculoskeletal health, chronic disease management and maximizing health human resources efficiency to ensure the right care, is delivered by the right practitioner, at the right time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".