The Development and Testing of a Checklist to Study Behaviour Change Techniques used in a Treatment Programme for Canadian Armed Forces Members with Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are reports of increased use of a variety of behaviour change techniques (BCT) by physiotherapists and findings of beneficial effects of use. However, there is a lack of physiotherapy-specific definitions of these techniques, as well as a sense of how physiotherapists use them in practice. Through this study, the authors created and field tested a preliminary nomenclature and description for BCT in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP). METHODS: Items for the Physiotherapy Behaviour Change Technique (PT-BCT) checklist were derived from a nomenclature created for use in psychology and also from publications of studies using cognitive behaviour therapy-based approaches in physiotherapy. Content validity was tested via survey of clinical and research experts. Videotapes of a 6-week patient self-management rehabilitation programme were used for training, reliability testing, and field testing of the PT-BCT checklist. RESULTS: Checklist items were endorsed by the majority of experts surveyed; intra- and inter-rater reliability were moderate to high. In the field study, a broad range of BCT types (behavioural, cognitive, and motivational) were observed in both classroom and gym settings. CONCLUSIONS: The BCT nomenclature arising from this study and the PT-BCT checklist will be useful to further explore behaviour change in physiotherapy practice. The observation in this study that BCT were integrated into physiotherapists' practice illustrates how physiotherapists can play a role in changing behaviour, specifically in the presence of CNSLBP.
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".