MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898763172 · doi:10.7417/ct.2018.2087

Direct access in physical therapy: a systematic review.

2019· review· en· W2898763172 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniele Piscitelli, Mariusz P. Furmanek, Roberto Meroni, Leonardo Pellicciari

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLMEDLINEReferralPhysical therapyHealth careCohort studyFamily medicineInclusion (mineral)Patient satisfactionPsychological interventionInternal medicineSurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Grooving evidence suggests that patients could have Direct Access (DA) to physiotherapy. It represents a new model of care, which might lead to improve patients' health status and decrease cost services for healthcare compared with a secondary care referral pathway. The aim of this study is to explore the evidence regarding feasibility, effectiveness, costs, safety and patient satisfaction through DA compared to other organizational models. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out through MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases from their inceptions until March 2018 using keywords related with DA. All articles in English, Italian or Polish comparing the modality of DA with any other organizational modality were included. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data, and assessed methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. RESULTS: 1593 articles were initially identified, and thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The mean NOS score for study quality was 6.4 ± 1.4 out of a possible total score of nine points. Patients impairments and health care status, were similar through all studies. DA showed less number of physiotherapy treatments, visits to physician, imaging performed and required fewer non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and secondary care. Patients were more satisfied with the service in comparison to the group referred by the physician. and costs per subject were lower. DA patients were younger, with a higher level of education; mostly, they presented a less severe clinical condition and a more acute pathologies related to the spine. No harms were reported. Only one study assessed the clinical safety of the DA. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that DA to physiotherapy is feasible considering the clinical and economic point of view. However, more research is still needed due to the low evidence of the reviewed studies and to explore the clinical safety of DA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207