low back pain treatment by athletic trainers and athletic therapists: biopsychosocial or biomedical?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low back pain’s (LBP) continues to burden society and the individual through high rates of recurrence and chronicity. Recent evidence suggests that the way a clinician thinks about pain influences treatment practices and rehabilitation outcomes. Our study characterized the way American Athletic Trainer’s (AT) and Canadian Athletic Therapist’s (C-AT) think about LBP by measuring treatment orientation. 273 ATs and 382 C-ATs completed a questionnaire containing demographic questions and the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Athletic Trainers/Therapists (PABS-AT/C-AT), which classifies treatment orientation as biomedical or biopsychosocial. We noted that overall ATs and C-ATs reported a stronger biomedical orientation than biopsychosocial. In addition, treating more LBP patients per year was associated with a decreased AT’s and C-AT’s biomedical orientation. Age and experience was associated with a decreased C-AT’s biomedical orientation, and primarily treating the general public was associated with a stronger C-AT’s biopsychosocial orientation. Further research is needed to determine the impact AT’s and C-AT’s biomedical orientation has on rehabilitation outcomes since this orientation in other clinicians has been predictive of poor rehabilitation outcomes in LBP patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".