Patient and referring health care provider satisfaction with a physiotherapy spinal triage assessment service
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate participant and referring care provider satisfaction associated with a spinal triage assessment service delivered by physiotherapists in collaboration with orthopedic surgeons. METHODS: People with low back-related complaints were recruited from those referred to a spinal triage assessment program delivered by physiotherapists. Measures of patient and provider satisfaction were completed at approximately 4 weeks after the assessment. The satisfaction surveys were analyzed quantitatively with descriptive statistics and qualitatively with an inductive thematic approach of open and axial coding. RESULTS: A total of 108/115 participants completed the posttest satisfaction survey. Sixty-six percent of participants were "very satisfied" with the service and 55% were "very satisfied" with the recommendations that were made. Only 18% of referring care providers completed the satisfaction survey and 90.5% of those were "very satisfied" with the recommendations. Sixty-one participants and 14 care providers provided comments which revealed a diverse range of themes which were coded into positive (ie, understanding the problem, communication, customer service, efficiency, and management direction), negative (ie, lack of detail, time to follow-up, cost) and neutral related to the triage service, and an "other" category unrelated to the service (ie, chronic symptoms, comorbidities, and limited access to health care.) CONCLUSION: The quantitative results of the participant survey demonstrated very high levels of satisfaction with the service and slightly less satisfaction with the recommendations that were made. Satisfaction of referring care providers with the recommendations and report was also high, but given the low response rate, these results should be interpreted with caution. Qualitative analysis of participant and provider comments revealed a diverse range of themes. These other issues may be important contextual factors that have the potential to impact patient relevant outcomes.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it