Knowledge, Attitudes, and Current Practices of Canadian Physiotherapists in Preventing and Managing Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To describe the knowledge, attitudes, and current practices of Canadian physiotherapists in preventing and managing diabetes. Methods: Members of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association were recruited by email to participate in a Web-based survey. The survey contained 40 items in four domains: demographics and education, attitudes and beliefs, current practices, and knowledge of diabetes. A descriptive analysis was completed for all the response variables from the survey. Results: A total of 401 physiotherapists from 10 provinces and 2 territories participated. Respondents were most confident in providing education about exercise and had decreasing confidence in providing education about managing secondary complications, weight management, blood sugar control, and nutrition, respectively. Only 32.4% of participants offered diabetes management counselling, citing lack of training. Knowledge was generally good, except for activity guidelines. Conclusions: A significant proportion of physiotherapists lack confidence in providing key aspects of care to patients with diabetes. Gaps in clinical practice and knowledge of activity guidelines were also observed. This study highlights the need to review entry-level physiotherapy training and to develop continuing educational opportunities in this area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".