Practice-Based Research Networks and Massage Therapy: a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are means to connect practitioners with researchers and increase the body of rigorous research. PBRNs have been used in medicine for decades, but efforts to create PBRNs in massage therapy (MT) are limited. PURPOSE: Examine and describe the amount of and nature of MT-related publications derived from PBRN-supported endeavors. PUBLICATION SELECTION: Databases: Scopus, CINAHL, PubMed, ClinicalKey, EMBASE, Google Scholar. Keywords: massage, massage therapy, practice-based research network, PBRN. Key items: publication year, operating PBRN, article type, study design, general theme, massage therapist involvement/MT application. Inclusion Criteria: studies conducted through a PBRN using MT/massage therapists as an investigated factor; articles/editorials focused on PBRN-related MT research. RESULTS: Initial database search resulted in 444 records; 40 articles included in analysis from database search, PBRN website access, and PBRN staff contacts. Publication dates ranged from 2005 to 2019, with nearly all published since 2013. Nine PBRNs published 29 articles based on 20 studies and sub-studies as research papers (n=21) or poster/oral presentation abstracts (n=8), and articles discussing the need for PBRNs in MT (n=8). Most research studies were conducted as surveys (n=21), examining practice characteristics (n=9) and patient perspectives/utilization (n=7). Three articles discussing PBRNs in MT were not connected to any specific PBRN. CONCLUSION: The PBRN model holds promise to further the field of MT, but implementation needs significant development. Promoting the creation and growth of massage-specific PBRNs should be a focus of professional associations and research institutions to expand the body of scientific evidence supporting MT. While the United States has had the most PBRN-related research efforts, a sustainable implementation model is not evident as highlighted by inactivity from US-based PBRNs after initial productivity. An Australian PBRN may serve as a needed sustainability model for massage-related PBRNs in the US if their productivity trajectory continues.
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 | 0.074 | 0.254 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.045 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".