Achieving Consensus on Recommendations for the Clinical Management of Overweight and Obese Adults for Canadian Physiotherapy Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to reach consensus on the importance and feasibility of clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations for physiotherapy practice for the prevention and management of overweight and obesity in Canadian adults. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi method to achieve consensus. Participants rated the importance and feasibility of recommendations using a nine-point scale in two rounds of electronic surveys and a conference call. The mean and distribution of ratings were analyzed to determine consensus. RESULTS: Twenty-one physiotherapists experienced in the management of patients with obesity and representing diverse regions of Canada and areas of practice participated. Seventeen (81.0%) completed survey 1. Ten (47.6%) participated in the conference call and survey 2. Eight of 34 strategies received mean ratings of 7.00 or more for both importance and feasibility from at least two-thirds of participants. These strategies were related to physical activity prescription and assessment. CONCLUSIONS: A sample of physiotherapists in Canada agreed that obesity-related CPGs contain recommendations that are important to physiotherapy practice. These findings, along with the Canadian Physiotherapy Association's position statement on obesity, provide support for the argument that physiotherapists, as direct-access practitioners or members of multidisciplinary teams, should play a role in the health care of people with obesity and overweight.
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 | 0.121 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".