Quality-Based Procedures for Knee Replacement, Hip Replacement, and Hip Fracture: Physiotherapists' Perceptions of Adherence, Barriers, and Facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This mixed-methods study examined the perceived barriers to and facilitators of implementing best-practice guidelines (BPGs) and adhering to provincial Quality-Based Procedures (QBPs) by Ontario physiotherapists working with patients after total knee replacement (TKR), total hip replacement (THR), and hip fracture (HF). Method: Using snowball sampling, 93 hospital and home care physiotherapists working with patients after TKR, THR, or HF completed a Web-based survey. A subset of these participated in follow-up semi-structured telephone interviews. Results: The perception of QBP adherence varied, with self-reported adherence rates across identified practice standards for TKR, THR, and HF reported as 62%, 69%, and 60%, respectively. Physiotherapists generally believed that BPGs improved outcomes; however, they identified clinical experience as their primary guide to practice. Only 66% perceived that their institutions met provincial standards. Barriers to BPG implementation and QBP adherence included insufficient time, lack of access to QBPs, and limited awareness of current BPGs. Qualitative themes included awareness and knowledge, flexibility and funding, communication, and availability of and equitable access to outpatient and community-based physiotherapy services. Conclusions: Physiotherapists reported that they primarily used clinical experience to inform care after TKR, THR, and HF, but they were also supportive of BPGs and QBPs. The results suggest that increased access to and education about QBPs, as well as supportive resources, could increase their integration into clinical practice.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".