What are the perceived needs of people living with chronic pain regarding physiotherapy services? A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain represents a major health issue, affecting the physical and mental health of approximately one in five people worldwide. It is now widely recognized that health professionals should use interventions that meet the needs of people living with chronic pain. Therefore, physiotherapists should attend to patients' perceived needs regarding physiotherapy services, i.e. the needs that are perceived by patients themselves based on their beliefs, values, preferences and expectations. However, previous reviews have mainly focused on health professionals' and experts' evaluations of patients' needs, which may result in inadequate answers to these needs. Therefore, a better understanding of patients' perceived needs could lead to more ethical and higher quality physiotherapy services. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review is thus to explore what is known from the existing literature about the perceived needs of people living with chronic pain regarding physiotherapy services. METHODS: This scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's six-step framework. Medline, Embase, CINHAL, and APA PsycINFO will be used to search the scientific literature. The grey literature will also be searched using Google Scholar, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global (PQDTGlobal). Studies published in English and French will only be considered. Two independent reviewers will perform the selection and extraction processes. Descriptive statistics will be performed to characterize the included studies. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies will be analyzed and synthetized using convergent qualitative meta-integration. Thereby, we will use the seven steps for convergent qualitative meta-integration proposed by Frantzen and Fetters to transform, analyze and integrate the quantitative and qualitative data. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Included studies will describe the perceived needs of adults living with chronic pain regarding physiotherapy services. Studies focusing on the perspectives of health professionals and rehabilitation services other than physiotherapy will be excluded.
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 | 0.105 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.010 |
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".