Barriers to Rehabilitation in Primary Health Care in Ontario: Funding and Wait Times for Physical Therapy Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine barriers to accessing physical therapy (PT) services in Ontario primary health care with respect to funding sources and wait times. Methods: A stratified random sample of 1100 registered Ontario PTs and 3000 Ontario family physicians were surveyed by mail in 2004. Relationships were examined between PT wait times, funding source, geographical region and caseload composition. Results: Physicians identified the cost of private rehabilitation and long wait times as the most common barriers to referring patients to rehabilitation. Wait times for PT were longer in publicly funded settings than in privately funded practice settings (p, 0.001) and in the North (p, 0.001) and East (p 5 0.010) regions of Ontario compared with the most urban region of Ontario. Patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions, cardiopulmonary conditions and general debility were at least three times more likely to receive PT services at publicly funded than privately funded practice settings. Furthermore, patients with acute musculoskeletal conditions were less likely to receive PT services in publicly funded practice settings (odds ratio 5 0.11, 95% confidence interval 5 0.05-0.23). Conclusions: Current Ontario health-care structures may affect access to PT services for vulnerable populations such as those with chronic conditions, those lacking private health insurance and those living in less urban regions of Ontario.
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".