Perceived Barriers Among Healthcare Professionals for Access to Physical Therapy Service in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To examine physical therapy scope of practice and to describe the barriers and facilitators for access to physical therapy services as reported by healthcare professionals in Saudi Arabia. Methods Ninety physical therapists from the 6 hospitals in the cities of Riyadh, Jeddah, and Dammam were surveyed by the cross-sectional questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed through email invitation or in-person. The questionnaire was developed to determine the perceived barriers to direct access to physical therapy service among healthcare professionals. Results The present study had a response rate of 77.7% (70 out of 90 physical therapists). Majority of the participants were in the age group range of 21–30 years (41.4%) and 68.6% of the respondents’ highest educational qualification is a Baccalaureate degree. The gender distribution showed that the majority of the respondents were female (51.4%). More than a quarter of the participants had a clinical experience that ranges from 6 to 10 years. Majority of the participants were working in the city hospital (88.6%). Most of the participants strongly agreed or -agreed that the factors included in the questionnaire such as geographical accessibility, availability, affordability, and acceptability of services were barriers to provide access to physical therapy services in Saudi Arabia. Conclusions This study documents many of the perceived barriers for access to providing physical therapy services in Saudi Arabia such as geographical accessibility, availability, affordability, and acceptability of services. Furthermore, the identified barriers could be used as a framework by policymaker and the third party payment system in order to further improve access to physical therapy services in Saudi Arabia.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".