Looking at Both Sides of the Coin: Addressing Rupture of the Therapeutic Relationship in Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy/Physiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synopsis As physical therapists, we may have all experienced tense moments in our therapeutic relationships with patients. Whether small or large, implicit or explicit, relational breakdowns are a normal part of human interactions. Within the clinical encounter, these tensions are called “ruptures.” In psychotherapy, ruptures have been associated with increased dropout rates and poor clinical outcomes. To increase the likelihood that physical therapists establish, maintain, and strengthen therapeutic relationships with their patients, recognizing and repairing ruptures would seem logical. However, we contend that relational tensions, although inevitable, are most often avoided by physical therapists, potentially to the peril of the therapeutic relationship. A responsive approach that involves adjusting our mind-set, being aware, and taking appropriate action could facilitate rupture repair. We provide clinical examples of rupture and repair and discuss the opportunities that “the other side of the coin” presents for professional and personal growth. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):500–504. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11152
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".