Ontario Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists’ Attitudes toward and Beliefs about Managing Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore Ontario musculoskeletal physiotherapists’ attitudes toward and beliefs about managing chronic low back pain (CLBP), and their biomedical (BM) and bio-psychosocial (BPS) treatment orientation. Method: Through a link in the Ontario Physiotherapy Association newsletter, we administered an electronic survey to registered physiotherapists via SurveyMonkey. We used a modified three-step Dillman approach to encourage participation. The questionnaire included the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS–PT) measure, and demographic–practice items. Results: A total of 99 physiotherapists met the eligibility criteria and completed the PABS–PT (72.7% women; mean 17 years of experience). Respondents scored a mean of 26.98 (SD 7.69) on the BM sub-scale and 34.43 (SD 4.84) on the BPS sub-scale. Physiotherapists in public practice had a stronger BPS orientation (mean 36.52) than those in private practice (33.80; p = 0.01). Less experienced physiotherapists (<10 y) had a higher BM sub-scale score (mean 29.33) than more experienced physiotherapists (25.24, p = 0.013), and 78.8% of physiotherapists reported an awareness of clinical practice guidelines. Conclusions: Our preliminary findings suggest that Ontario physiotherapists’ attitudes and beliefs align with a BPS orientation. Future studies should explore the impact of education that promotes a BPS approach to the management of CLBP.
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".