Psychological Distress among Patients Attending Physiotherapy: A Survey-Based Investigation of Irish Physiotherapists’ Current Practice and Opinions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the current practice and opinions of members of the Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists (ISCP) with respect to the care of patients in psychological distress. Method: This was a cross-sectional, survey-based investigation of Irish physiotherapists. An electronic survey was sent by email to the ISCP membership. It consisted of closed- and open-ended questions, as well as opinion questions with Likert scale responses. Results: More than 80% of the respondents reported that they encountered patients with psychological distress at least once a week. A lack of education in the area of mental health emerged as a predominant theme. Reflecting on current practice, many discussed the importance of addressing underlying psychological issues before or in tandem with physical issues. Respondents who had engaged in further education in mental health, psychology, or both rated their confidence in recognizing the signs and symptoms of psychological distress higher ( p < 0.001). Moreover, a greater proportion of these respondents routinely assessed for psychological distress in their clinical practice ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: Physiotherapists regularly encounter patients whom they perceive to have high levels of psychological distress. Irish physiotherapists displayed positive attitudes toward patients’ psychological well-being. However, additional education in mental health was a recognized need in the profession.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".