What Do Patients with Chronic Spinal Pain Expect from Their Physiotherapist?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Evidence has suggested that patients' expectations influence the clinical course when they present with low back pain (LBP). However, little empirical evidence has outlined the nature of these expectations. The aim of this study was to describe LBP patients' expectations of physiotherapy. Method: Seventy-nine adult patients who had LBP for more than 16 weeks and were referred for physiotherapy at two hospital physiotherapy departments in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, were included. They filled out a questionnaire detailing their expectations of treatment. Results: Before treatment, more than 90% of patients expected a physical examination, tests or investigations, a diagnosis, reassurance and advice, and clear explanations of causation, symptom management, and benefits and risks of treatment. Approximately half hoped for a prescription or referral to a specialist, and about 60% hoped to discuss problems in their life. Conclusions: The findings of this study indicate that patients attend physiotherapy with clear expectations about what information should be provided. Most expected tests or investigations leading to diagnosis and an explanation of causation; this presents a challenge for clinicians, given the current understanding of LBP reflected in international practice guidelines. The fact that more than half of the patients wanted to discuss problems in their life points to the need for physiotherapists to consider LBP from a bio-psychosocial perspective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".