Inside the Clinic: Health Professionals’ Role in Their Clients’ Psychological Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Health professionals (ie, physical therapists, athletic trainers) can play an integral role in the psychological recovery from injury. OBJECTIVE: To examine health professionals' perceptions of the roles they play and their influence on the psychological recovery of their clients. DESIGN: A qualitative design using semistructured interviews that were transcribed and analyzed using interpretational analyses to reveal themes. SETTING: 4 rehabilitation clinics specializing in sport- and physical-activity-related injuries. PARTICIPANTS: 18 participants (17 physical therapists, 1 athletic trainer) with a mean age of 36 years. RESULTS: Using thematic coding of the interview data, general-dimension data themes identified were centered on the roles of rapport builder, educator, and communicator. Health professionals perceive that they play important roles in the psychological recovery of their clients in spite of a lack of professional training in psychology and strive to create a caring and supportive environment. Results demonstrate the perceptions of the roles they play and the influence they have on the psychological component of the recovery process.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".