Integrating Physiotherapists into Primary Health Care Organizations: The Physiotherapists' Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study's purpose was to gain insight into physiotherapists' perspectives on the perceived barriers and facilitators of integrating physiotherapists into primary health care (PHC) teams. Method: A qualitative descriptive approach consisting of semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interviews was used. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and checked by the interviewers to ensure trustworthiness. Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's six steps to thematic analysis. Results: Eight participants were interviewed, representing physiotherapists from diverse demographics and geographical regions in Ontario. Common themes discussed were the orientation process, their experiences of integrating the physiotherapist's role into the organization, programme development compared with one-to-one care, the characteristics of the physiotherapist and the interdisciplinary team, and the resources available in the organization. Our key findings of influential factors for integration were (1) the diversity and novelty of new physiotherapists' role, (2) team members' understanding of the physiotherapists' role, and (3) physiotherapists' actions and values regarding PHC. Conclusions: The integration process is affected by factors ranging from individual to system levels. The integration of physiotherapists into PHC would be enhanced by a greater understanding of the role of physiotherapy in PHC by physiotherapists, other health care professionals, and system planners.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".