A patient expectation and satisfaction survey with regards to exercise prescription from their osteopathic manual practitioner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient satisfaction is virtually synonymous with health status. There exists little empirical data which examine osteopathic patient expectation and satisfaction with respects to self-care and home exercise interventions. Objective: To examine patient expectation and satisfaction in Ontario with regards to receiving exercise prescription from their Osteopathic Manual Practitioner (OMP) for management and prevention of their chief complaint. Design: A cross-sectional patient expectation and satisfaction survey. Methods: 75 surveys were delivered to 10 osteopathic clinics in the Greater Toronto Area. 45 of those surveys were completed and returned. Microsoft Excel 2010 was used to analyze the descriptive data and GraphPad Prism 6 was used for inferential analysis. Content analysis was used for all free text responses. Results: A high majority of osteopathic patients are satisfied with their treatments (97.8%). The Fisher’s Exact test revealed no significant difference in satisfaction between patients who expected exercise and received it and those who expected exercise but did not receive it (p= 0.14). A significant minority (43.2%) would like to be provided with more home care exercise advice. Other areas of improvement are: follow-up, referral base,take- home tools, and in-office exercise equipment. Conclusions: This study examined patient expectation and satisfaction in Ontario with regards to receiving exercise prescription from their OMP. The results showed that, overall, patients are satisfied with their osteopathic treatments. Patients expected exercise advice from their OMP, and generally, received it. As satisfaction and health outcome are synergistic however, there are several areas in need of improvement.
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".