Patient Outcomes After Treatment by Athletic Therapy Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be used in athletic training and athletic therapy but are rarely incorporated in internships. Student-run clinics are common in other health professions and provide effective treatment and valuable learning environments. To our knowledge, no one has evaluated rehabilitation outcomes in patients treated by athletic therapy students (ATSs). OBJECTIVE: To measure the improvement in function in injured patients seeking treatment at an ATS clinic. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: An ATS clinic. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 59 patients (32 women, age = 33.9 ± 14.7 years; 27 men, age = 38 ± 14.4 years) from the community with a variety of low back, lower extremity, and upper extremity injuries participated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): At baseline and 6-week follow-up, all patients completed 1 of 3 scales (depending on their injury location) to assess their injured level of function. Scales were the Oswestry Disability Index for low back injuries; Lower Extremity Functional Scale for lower extremity injuries; and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand for upper extremity injuries. RESULTS: On average, patients received 4.7 ± 1.8 treatments across 48.8 ± 16.1 days. They experienced an increase in function between baseline and follow-up assessments (18.8% ± 20.3%; P < .001, Cohen d = 1.06). Moreover, the amount of functional improvement was clinically meaningful, as it was greater than the minimal clinically important difference for each scale. The efficacy of treatments did not differ according to the internship experiences of the ATSs. CONCLUSIONS: Function improved in patients after treatment delivered by an ATS. Patient-reported outcome measures were useful for the students in monitoring patient improvement, but more research is needed regarding effective treatments for patients with chronic pain. Our results suggested that ATS clinics provide effective treatments for patients, service to the community, and a learning opportunity for students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".