MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965972502 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-430-17

Low Back Pain Treatment by Athletic Trainers and Athletic Therapists: Biomedical or Biopsychosocial Orientation?

2019· article· en· W2965972502 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAthletic Training and Education
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelAthletic trainingPhysical therapyContext (archaeology)Orientation (vector space)MedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Low back pain (LBP) remains a societal burden due to consistently high rates of recurrence and chronicity. Recent evidence suggested that a provider's treatment orientation influences patient beliefs, the clinical approach, and subsequently, rehabilitation outcomes. Objective To characterize American athletic trainer (AT) and Canadian athletic therapist (C-AT) treatment orientations toward LBP. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Online survey. Patients or Other Participants A total of 273 ATs (response rate = 13.3%) and 382 C-ATs (response rate = 15.3%). Main Outcome Measure(s) Participants completed demographic questions and the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) for ATs/C-ATs. The PABS measures the biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientation of health care providers and is scored on a 6-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics characterized the participants; t tests and 1-way analyses of variance identified differences between group means; and Spearman correlations assessed relationships between the biomedical and biopsychosocial scores and age, number of LBP patients per year, and years of experience. Results Athletic trainers treating 9 to 15 LBP patients per year had higher biomedical scores (35.0 ± 5.7) than ATs treating 16 to 34 (31.9 ± 5.5, P = .039) or >34 (31.7 ± 8.6, P = .018) LBP patients per year. The C-ATs treating 16 to 34 (31.8 ± 6.3, P = .038) and >34 (31.0 ± 6.7, P < .001) LBP patients per year had lower biomedical scores than those treating ≤8 LBP patients per year (34.8 ± 5.9). The C-ATs with ≤5 years of experience had higher biomedical scores than those with 10 to 15 (31.0 ± 6.7, P = .011) and 16 to 24 (29.8 ± 7.5, P < .001) years of experience. Canadian athletic therapists treating the general public had higher (31.7 ± 4.0) biopsychosocial scores than ATs treating athletes (31.3 ± 3.5, P = .006). The C-ATs ≤35.6 years of age had higher biomedical scores (33.1 ± 5.9) than those >35.6 years of age (30.5 ± 7.0, P < .001). Conclusions Athletic trainers and C-ATs who treated more LBP patients per year were more likely to score low on a biomedical treatment orientation subscale. Because this orientation has predicted poor outcomes in other health care providers, further research is needed to determine the effects of ATs' and C-ATs' biomedical orientations on rehabilitation outcomes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.339 · 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