Patient Perspectives on Transitions from Acute to Community-Based Physiotherapy Care Following Total Knee Replacement Surgery Within the Context of a Bundled Care Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Research on fiscal implications of the bundled care (BC) model exist; however, patient-perceived experiences are less well known. As BC expands in Ontario, this study aims to examine these experiences with physiotherapy care within the total knee replacement (TKR) BC programme. Methods: Qualitative cross-sectional study design. Semi-structured one-on-one telephone interviews were conducted with eight patients four to six weeks post-TKR. Thematic analysis was used. Results: This exploratory study identified three themes across the care journey that patients perceived as influencing their physiotherapy experiences: timely access to physiotherapy care, quality of physiotherapy care, and patient outcomes. Communication, clinical support, and social support were sub-themes. Conclusions: Patients' overall experiences with BC physiotherapy were positive. Areas for improvement included coordination of postoperative physiotherapy and return-to-work support. Patients valued group settings and were interested in meeting previous TKR patients. Health system planners are advised to consider incorporating patient experiences when evaluating and developing BC programmes to achieve patient-centred outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".