Factors Associated with Reduced Perceived Access to Physiotherapy Services among People with Low Back Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explore which socio-demographic, clinical, and other factors are associated with reduced perceived access to physiotherapy among people with low back disorders. Methods: A cross-sectional study design was used to evaluate perceived access to physiotherapy services in a convenience sample of 111 people with low back disorders presenting to a spinal triage service. Participants were asked whether they felt that they had reduced access to physiotherapy as a result of cost, wait time, or location. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to explore the association between perceived access to physiotherapy and a range of socio-demographic, clinical, and other factors. Results: Overall reduced perceived access to physiotherapy was reported by 27.9% of the sample; 13.5% reported reduced access resulting from cost, 9.9% from wait time, and 10.8% from location. A variety of socio-demographic and clinical variables were found to be associated with reduced perceived access, including the presence of other health conditions, rural residence, and no prior physiotherapy use. Conclusion: Perceived access to physiotherapy among people with low back disorders may be associated with a diverse range of factors. Further research is required to determine the relationship between these variables and actual use of physiotherapy services.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".