Strategies to Increase Access to Outpatient Physiotherapy Services: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Multiple Canadian jurisdictions have curtailed public funding for outpatient physiotherapy services, impacting access and potentially creating or worsening inequities in access. We sought to identify evaluated organizational strategies that aimed to improve access to physiotherapy services for community-dwelling persons. Method: We used Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methods, including a systematic search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Embase for relevant peer-reviewed texts published in English, French, or German, and we performed a qualitative content analysis of included articles. Results: Fifty-one peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria. Most studies of interventions or system changes to improve access took place in the United Kingdom (17), the United States (12), Australia (9), and Canada (8). Twenty-nine studies aimed to improve access for patients with musculoskeletal conditions; only five studies examined interventions to improve equitable access for underserved populations. The most common interventions and system changes studied were expanded physiotherapy roles, direct access, rapid access systems, telerehabilitation, and new community settings. Conclusions: Studies evaluating interventions and health system changes to improve access to physiotherapy services have been limited in focus, and most have neglected to address inequities in access. To improve equitable access to physiotherapy services in Canada, physiotherapy providers in local settings can implement and evaluate transferable patient-centred access strategies, particularly telerehabilitation and primary care integration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".