MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161857713 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2011.22180

Changes in Physiotherapy Utilization in One Workforce: Implications for Accessibility among Canadian Working-Age Adults

2011· article· en· W2161857713 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sheilah Hogg‐Johnson, Donald C. Cole, Hyunmi Lee, Dorcas Beaton, Carol W. Kennedy, Peter Subrata

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsWorkforceQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicinePhysical therapyService (business)Medical insuranceFamily medicineNursingBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In debates over access to essential medical care, comparatively little attention has been paid to the provision of outpatient physiotherapy services. We examined physiotherapy utilization for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among approximately 2,000 employees of a large, unionized, Ontario workplace. We obtained MSD-related physiotherapy claims and service data from the public Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, two private medical insurance carriers, a workplace special fund starting in 1995 and a workplace-contracted, on-site physiotherapy clinic starting in 1999. We observed substantial increases in overall physiotherapy utilization for MSDs: a median of 234 services per quarter for 1992-1994 to 1,281 for 1999-2002. With inclusive workplace provision policies, most physiotherapy utilization occurred on-site by 1999-2002 (70%). With a user-pay orientation to outpatient physiotherapy services increasing among working-age adults in Ontario, there is substantial potential for unequal access among those not privately insured or in workplaces with direct service provision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207