Effects of patient – clinician disagreement in occupational low back pain: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine (1) patient--physical therapist and patient--physician agreement on clinical management of LBP, (2) patient perception of agreement between physical therapist and physician, (3) association between agreement and outcome (return to work, self-perceived disability). METHOD: Thirty-five workers compensated for LBP responded to a telephone interview within 1 week of referral to physical therapy. They were asked about agreement with the physical therapist and the physician regarding the clinical management of their LBP and whether they thought the physical therapist was providing the treatment the physician would have thought appropriate. They completed a second interview upon returning to work or after 3 months. They answered questionnaires on self-perceived disability, psychological distress, coping strategies, and job satisfaction at both baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: Nearly all patients (97.1%) agreed with the physical therapist and all believed the physical therapist was providing the treatment the physician would have thought appropriate. The 10 (28.6%) patients who disagreed with their physician on medical management of their LBP were less satisfied with the medical care (P=0.05), technical quality of the visit (P=0.01), and catastrophized more about their pain (P=0.03) than those who agreed. Disagreement was not associated with greater time off-work or greater self-perceived disability. CONCLUSION: Patients who disagreed with their physician were less satisfied with their medical management, and catastrophized more about their pain than those who agreed, but disagreement was not associated with chronicity or disability. Studies with larger sample sizes should investigate the role of other factors, such as patient expectations, in the transition to chronicity.
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 | 0.033 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".