Colombian Physiotherapists’ Use of Functional Outcome Measures in Their Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We examined physiotherapists’ use of functional outcome measures in their practice to compare the frequency of use of functional outcome measures and impairment-based measures and to explore policies and practices related to the use of functional outcome measures in Colombia. Method: Eligible participants were licensed physiotherapists actively practising in Colombia. They were recruited by means of a survey link sent via email by a continuing education organization to all the physiotherapists in its database and through snowball sampling. The survey was adapted from questionnaires previously used in similar research in other countries. We used descriptive statistics to describe the use of 14 functional outcome measures and 4 impairment-based measures that have been translated into Spanish and to compare the demographics of the participants who used and did not use the listed functional outcome measures. Results: Of the 606 respondents, 87% used 1–14 of the listed functional outcome measures regularly or sometimes in their practice. The most commonly used functional outcome measures were the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (59%), the Barthel Index (56%), and the Berg Balance Scale (53%). In addition, 60% of respondents reported their workplace does charting electronically, 66% stated that their practice mandates or regularly uses functional outcome measures, and 59% indicated that they can independently select which outcome measures to use. Conclusions: The majority of Colombian physiotherapists surveyed are using outcome measures in their practice, which indicates that they are engaged in evidence-based practice. Study findings may stimulate more sharing of information on patient outcomes among Colombian physiotherapists, promote further research, and contribute to advancing practice in Colombia.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".