Low Back Pain: Investigation of Biases in Outpatient Canadian Physical Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research suggested that physical therapy services can be influenced by patient characteristics (age, sex, socioeconomic status) or insurance status rather than their clinical need. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether patient-related factors (age, sex, SES) and the source of reimbursement for physical therapy services (insurance status) influence wait time for, frequency of, and duration of physical therapy for low back pain. DESIGN: This study was an empirical cross-sectional online survey of Canadian physical therapy professionals (defined as including physical therapists and physical rehabilitation specialists). METHODS: A total of 846 physical therapy professionals received 1 of 24 different (and randomly selected) clinical vignettes (ie, patient case scenarios) and completed a 40-item questionnaire about how they would treat the fictional patient in the vignette as well as their professional clinical practice. Each vignette described a patient with low back pain but with variations in patient characteristics (age, sex, socioeconomic status) and insurance status (no insurance, private insurance, Workers' Compensation Board insurance). RESULTS: The age, sex, and socioeconomic status of the fictional vignette patients did not affect how participants would provide service. However, vignette patients with Workers' Compensation Board insurance would be seen more frequently than those with private insurance or no insurance. When asked explicitly, study participants stated that insurance status, age, and chronicity of the condition were not factors associated with wait time for, frequency of, or duration of treatment. LIMITATIONS: This study used a standardized vignette patient and may not accurately represent physical therapy professionals' actual clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be an implicit professional bias in relation to patients' insurance status; the resulting inequity in service provision highlights the need for further research as a basis for national guidelines to promote equity in access to and provision of quality physical therapy 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 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 | 0.059 | 0.241 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".