New models of care integrating more autonomous roles for physiotherapists: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increased prevalence of non-communicable diseases and chronic disorders, including musculoskeletal disorders, access to care is limited in many health care systems and new multidisciplinary collaborative models of care have now been implemented in several countries in an effort to improve access to care. The paper aimed to describe the characteristics and present relevant evidence supporting different models of care that integrate physiotherapists as primary or secondary care practitioners for the management of patients with non-communicable diseases or chronic disorders. On the basis of a literature review up to August 2020 in 4 major bibliographical databases, we searched for studies of any design, including systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and position statements, that were related to direct access physiotherapy and advanced practice physiotherapy models of care. The impact of direct access physiotherapy and advanced practice physiotherapy models of care is presented in terms of clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, health care resource use and costs. These models appear to provide equal or better outcomes in terms of access to care, quality of care, and patients’ satisfaction. The strength of the evidence is variable, and outcomes vary depending on clinical settings, roles of physiotherapists, and characteristics of patients. This review highlights that these enhanced roles for physiotherapists, such as diagnosing, ordering diagnostic tests, or referring patients to physicians, in both primary and secondary care settings, are beneficial and may help optimize patients’ journey by providing earlier access to effective and efficient services compared with physician-led usual care models.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".