A scoping review of need and unmet need for community based physiotherapy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate need and unmet need for community-based physiotherapy services (CBPTS) for Canadian adults. The scoping review was completed between May-September 2015. The methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley and the recommendations to advance scoping studies by Levac et al. were followed. The definitions of normative, felt, comparative, and expressed need were used to categorize need and the dimensions of availability, affordability, and acceptability was used to categorize unmet need. Two reviewers (SW, JS) independently reviewed 2265 abstracts and selected 191 articles for full-text review. Data extraction and thematic analyses were completed on 24 articles. Comparative need and service availabilities were the most frequent type and reason identified for need and unmet need respectively. Individuals from rural communities and persons living with chronic conditions more frequently identified barriers to accessing CBPTS. Unmet need for CBPTS exists in Canada. Physiotherapists must consider innovative service delivery models in order to maximize population health outcomes and minimize stress on health care systems like the Canadian population ages.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".