Tensions Living Out Professional Values for Physical Therapists Treating Injured Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care services provided by workers' compensation systems aim to facilitate recovery for injured workers. However, some features of these systems pose barriers to high quality care and challenge health care professionals in their everyday work. We used interpretive description methodology to explore ethical tensions experienced by physical therapists caring for patients with musculoskeletal injuries compensated by Workers' Compensation Boards. We conducted in-depth interviews with 40 physical therapists and leaders in the physical therapy and workers' compensation fields from three Canadian provinces and analyzed transcripts using concurrent and constant comparative techniques. Through our analysis, we developed inductive themes reflecting significant challenges experienced by participants in upholding three core professional values: equity, competence, and autonomy. These challenges illustrate multiple facets of physical therapists' struggles to uphold moral commitments and preserve their sense of professional integrity while providing care to injured workers within a complex health service system.
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 | 0.067 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".