A mixed-methods survey of physiotherapists who practice acupuncture and dry needling in Ontario, Canada: practice characteristics, motivations, and professional outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physiotherapists (PTs) across the globe are increasingly incorporating filiform needling techniques (e.g., acupuncture, dry needling) into their clinical toolkits; and, the evidence base for these complementary therapies is becoming progressively more robust. However, to date, little is known about needling PTs themselves. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional survey design, PTs authorized to perform needling therapies in Ontario, Canada were recruited for anonymous participation (n = 2061) in an online survey. The survey asked providers about their demographics and practice characteristics, rationale for and views about therapeutic needling, and their related clinical and professional outcomes. The response rate was 20.7% (n = 426), and 22.3% (n = 95) of respondents provided textual responses to an open-ended qualitative question. RESULTS: While study respondents' demographic features appear similar to their broader professional population, Ontario's needling PTs are less likely to work in public sector settings. Most completed training in medical acupuncture rather than dry needling, and typically used needling in over one-third of patient visits. Almost all endorsed needling as an effective musculoskeletal treatment, the primary factor informing their adoption of the practice. While many viewed traditional Chinese medical theories as a useful explanatory framework, most relied on biomedical epistemology to drive their needling work. A majority of respondents reported that the inclusion of needling within their clinical toolkits had improved their likelihood of achieving excellent clinical results, helped support patient recruitment and retention, and heightened their professional satisfaction. While a few reported earning a higher income as a result, most reported that their clinical use of needling in addition to other PT modalities reduced their physical fatigue after a day's work. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents a first scholarly investigation into the motivations, training backgrounds and practice patterns of PTs who use acupuncture or dry needling. Additional research from other jurisdictions is needed to evaluate the transferability of study findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".