Physiotherapy in Haiti: A qualitative study exploring local clinicians' perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The physiotherapy profession in Haiti has seen many changes since the earthquake in 2010, due to the increased number of Haitians living with permanent impairments. The earthquake sparked a significant humanitarian response. Research shows that the response focused mainly on providing short-term rehabilitation services without sustained efforts to develop sustainable rehabilitation services. A decade later, little is known about the state of the Haitian physiotherapy profession. The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of Haitian physiotherapy professionals regarding the current state of the profession in terms of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. METHODS: We used a qualitative exploratory descriptive design. This study consisted of two phases: (1) a survey to identify potential interview participants, and identify preliminary themes to be explored in the follow-up interviews, and (2) a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews. We performed a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts. RESULTS: Four physiotherapists and one rehabilitation technician participated in the interviews. Six interrelated themes emerged, each having a systemic impact on the development of physiotherapy and rehabilitation services in Haiti: (1) physiotherapy as an emerging field, (2) government funding and planning of physiotherapy services, (3) accessibility to physiotherapy services, (4) relationship with doctors, (5) international collaboration, and (6) Haitian physiotherapy associations. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the ongoing efforts of local physiotherapy associations in advocating for the profession in Haiti, which has become one of the profession's main strengths. The lack of government funding and service planning was considered a significant barrier to overcome, as was the aftermath of the earthquake's emergency response. Future international efforts could focus on supporting local physiotherapy associations and organisations in their endeavours to develop sustainable rehabilitation services.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".