Signs of Inequitable Access: Users of Private Physiotherapy Services Do Not Reflect the Urban Population in Winnipeg, Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Both private and public funding cover outpatient physiotherapy (PT) in Canada. Knowledge is lacking in who does and does not access PT services, which limits the ability to identify health/access inequities created by current financing structures. This study characterizes the individuals accessing private PT in Winnipeg to better understand whether inequities exist, given the very limited publicly financed PT. Methods: Patients attending PT in 32 private businesses, sampled for geographic variation, completed a survey online or on paper. We compared the sample’s demographic characteristics with Winnipeg population data using chi-square goodness-of-fit tests. Results: In total, 665 adults accessing PT participated. Respondents were older and had higher levels of income and education compared to Winnipeg census data ( p ˂ 0.001). Our sample included higher proportions of female and White individuals, and lower proportions of Indigenous persons, newcomers, and people from visible minorities ( p ˂ 0.001). Conclusions: There are signs that inequities exist in access to PT in Winnipeg; the cohort who access private PT services does not reflect the wider population, which suggests that some segments of the population are not receiving care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".