Ordering Diagnostic Imaging: A Survey of Ontario Physiotherapists' Opinions on an Expanded Scope of Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore Ontario physiotherapists' opinions on their ability to order diagnostic imaging (DI). METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to all registered members of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario. Descriptive statistics were calculated using response frequencies. Practice characteristics were compared using χ(2) tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Of 1,574 respondents (21% response rate), 42% practised in orthopaedics and 53% in the public sector. Most physiotherapists were interested in ordering DI (72% MRI/diagnostic ultrasound, 78% X-rays/computed tomography scans). Respondents with an orthopaedic caseload of 50% or more (p<0.001) and those in the private sector (p<0.001) were more interested in ordering DI. Respondents preferred a DI course that combined face-to-face and Web-based components and one that was specific to their area of practice. Most respondents perceived minimal barriers to the uptake of ordering DI, and most agreed that support from other health care professionals would facilitate uptake. CONCLUSION: The majority of Ontario physiotherapists are interested in ordering DI. For successful implementation of a health care change, such as physiotherapists' ability to order DI, educational needs and barriers to and facilitators of the uptake of the authorized activity should be considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".