Low Back Pain: Current Patterns of Canadian Physiotherapy Service Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe the current patterns of service delivery of Canadian physiotherapy (PT) professionals working in adult musculoskeletal (MSK) outpatient practice. Methods: A total of 846 Canadian PT professionals working with an adult MSK outpatient clientele participated in an online survey about how they would treat a patient with low back pain (LBP). After reading an online clinical vignette about a fictional patient with varying insurance status, participants answered questions about how they would treat the patient (e.g., wait time, frequency and duration of treatment, time allotted for initial evaluation and treatment), about their actual practice (e.g., number of patients seen per day), and about their work setting. Results: The vignette patients with LBP would typically be seen within 2 weeks, especially in private practice, and most would receive care 2–3 times per week for 1–3 months. Initial evaluations and subsequent treatments would take 31–60 minutes. Two-thirds of participants reported treating 6–15 patients a day in their current practice setting. Differences were found between provinces and territories (with the longest wait time in Quebec), practice settings (with a longer wait time in the public sector), and insurance status (patients covered by workers' compensation are seen more frequently). Conclusion: This study adds to our knowledge of the accessibility of outpatient MSK PT services for patients with LBP in Canada, and it points to potential areas for improvement.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".