“I've found it's very meaningful work”: Perspectives of physiotherapists providing palliative care in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe insights from interviews about the experience of physiotherapists providing palliative care in Ontario and their perceptions of the role and value of physiotherapists' involvement in palliative care. METHODS: We conducted interviews with physiotherapists in Ontario, Canada (n = 14), and received emailed submissions from two others (one physiotherapist and one physiotherapy student) with current or recent practice experience in palliative care. We conducted inductive thematic analysis of the interview data and emailed submissions. RESULTS: Participants' reflections were categorized into three major themes: perceived value of the contribution of physiotherapists in palliative care; the experience of providing physiotherapy in palliative care; and reflections on the palliative care system. Participants described their role in palliative care as diverse, driven by patient goals and focused on the experience of patients and families. Participants perceived a high value in collaborative networks for supporting them to fulfill their role in palliative care settings. Participants also recommended efforts to increase awareness of the potential for physiotherapists to contribute to palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm those of research in other jurisdictions and extend our understanding of the value and meaningfulness of physiotherapy in palliative care, to patients, families, and physiotherapists themselves.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".