The ‘responsive’ practitioner: physiotherapists’ reflections on the ‘good’ in physiotherapy practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Being 'responsive' is named as an element of ethic of care theories, yet how it is enacted is not clearly described in health professional practice. Being 'responsive' is implied within patient-centered approaches and promoted as important to health care practices, including physiotherapy. However, ways of being a responsive practitioner have not been explicitly examined. Practitioners' perspectives about how a 'good' physiotherapist enacts responsiveness have potential implications for the future practice of physiotherapy. Physiotherapists' perceptions may inform professional priorities including education curricula, professional practices, and patient interactions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to explore experienced musculoskeletal (MSK) practitioners' perceptions of 'responsiveness' in the practice of a 'good' physiotherapist. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data arising from a hermeneutic phenomenological study into physiotherapists' perceptions of what constitutes a 'good' physiotherapist was undertaken. The secondary analysis focused on 'responsiveness,' which emerged as a major theme in the original study. FINDINGS: Six themes were identified related to 'Being responsive' in a 'good' physiotherapist: Being person-centered, Being attentive, Being open, Being a listener, Being validating, and Being positive. CONCLUSIONS: As a relational way of practicing, being responsive may facilitate person-centered approaches including a relational understanding of autonomy, inviting dialogue, and sharing power and decision-making with patients. Pivotal to the practice of a 'good' physiotherapist, being responsive in the ways underscored by participants suggests researchers, educators, and practitioners consider relational ways of practicing as a balance to the technical aspects of physiotherapy.
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 | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".