Perceived strengths and weaknesses of paediatric physiotherapy services: Results from an international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ensuring access to high quality services in paediatric physiotherapy (PT) is important to respond to the diverse needs of children. The accessibility and quality of paediatric PT services has however never been explored internationally. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of paediatric PT services offered around the world. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey design method was used with a subsample of physiotherapists (PTs) who had previously participated in an online survey. The survey used for this study included close- and open-ended questions about access to services and the SWOT of PT services within participants' country. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize quantitative data and a content analysis was performed on open-ended questions. RESULTS: Overall, 47 PTs from 47 countries completed the survey; 36% of participants reported that free access was available to all children in their country while 34% stated that a referral was always required when accessing services. Lack of direct access, insufficient specialized PT, financial and geographical issues were the main perceived barriers to access services. Access also emerged as one of the nine themes following the SWOT analysis. Other themes included education, quality of PT approaches, PT practices, communication and cooperation, teamwork, government, resources, and attitudes of PTs. DISCUSSION: Despite variations in accessing services and how services are delivered across countries, some similar themes influencing PTs practices were found. Future opportunities for PTs working with children should aim at optimizing the initial training and professional development of PTs in paediatrics, increasing access to services for all children and advocating for sustainable and well-coordinated models of care building on best practices.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".