A clinical reasoning model focused on clients’ behaviour change with reference to physiotherapists: its multiphase development and validation
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
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A biopsychosocial approach and behaviour change strategies have long been proposed to serve as a basis for addressing current multifaceted health problems. This emphasis has implications for clinical reasoning of health professionals. This study's aim was to develop and validate a conceptual model to guide physiotherapists' clinical reasoning focused on clients' behaviour change. METHODS: Phase 1 consisted of the exploration of existing research and the research team's experiences and knowledge. Phases 2a and 2b consisted of validation and refinement of the model based on input from physiotherapy students in two focus groups (n = 5 per group) and from experts in behavioural medicine (n = 9). RESULTS: Phase 1 generated theoretical and evidence bases for the first version of a model. Phases 2a and 2b established the validity and value of the model. The final model described clinical reasoning focused on clients' behaviour change as a cognitive, reflective, collaborative and iterative process with multiple interrelated levels that included input from the client and physiotherapist, a functional behavioural analysis of the activity-related target behaviour and the selection of strategies for behaviour change. CONCLUSIONS: This unique model, theory- and evidence-informed, has been developed to help physiotherapists to apply clinical reasoning systematically in the process of behaviour change with their clients.
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 | 0.002 | 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 it