Current Practices of Physical and Occupational Therapists Regarding Spasticity Assessment and Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to understand current trends in rehabilitation practice regarding spasticity assessment and treatment. Method: The clinical practices of Canadian physiotherapists and occupational therapists in assessing and treating spasticity were investigated using a self-administered, Web-based questionnaire (cross-sectional design). Experienced clinicians developed the questionnaire, which surveyed socio-demographic characteristics, work environment, and clinician satisfaction with spasticity assessments and preferences for treatment. Results: A total of 317 clinicians (204 physiotherapists and 113 occupational therapists) completed the questionnaire. The majority of participants reported that using valid and reliable outcome measures to assess spasticity was important (91.1%). Most clinicians indicated using a combination of spasticity assessments, and their level of satisfaction with these assessments was very high. All clinicians believed that spasticity should be evaluated by rehabilitation professionals, and most indicated that it should be assessed by more than one professional. Although 83.8% indicated that spasticity should be tested on admission, a much lower percentage believed that it should be evaluated throughout rehabilitation. Most clinicians (92.2%) reported using multiple treatment modalities for spasticity. Conclusions: This study is the first to document clinicians' practices regarding spasticity assessment and treatment. A better understanding of current trends in physiotherapy and occupational therapy will help in tailoring strategies to improve 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 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) | 0.000 | 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".