MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321111930 · doi:10.1186/s12875-023-01999-6

Knowledge and appropriateness of care of family physicians and physiotherapists in the management of shoulder pain: a survey study in the province of Quebec, Canada

2023· article· en· W4321111930 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Véronique Lowry, Patrick Lavigne, Diana Zidarov, Kadija Perreault, Jean‐Sébastien Roy, François Desmeules

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Primary Care · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCapsulitisPhysical therapyTendinopathyRotator cuffExact testSurgeryRange of motionTendon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is difficult to diagnose and treat with half of those affected still symptomatic six months after initial consultation. This may be explained by primary care management not conforming to evidence-based practice. This survey evaluated physiotherapists (PTs) and family physicians' (FPs) knowledge and appropriateness of care in shoulder pain management. METHODS: A survey sent to PTs and FPs in the province of Quebec, Canada presented four clinical vignettes with cases of rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathy, acute full-thickness RC tear, adhesive capsulitis and traumatic anterior glenohumeral instability. Respondents indicated diagnosis, indications for imaging, specialists' referrals, and choice of treatments. Answers were compared to recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Participants' responses were compared between types of providers with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Respondents (PTs = 175, FPs = 76) were mostly women with less than ten years of experience. More than 80% of PTs and 84% of FPs correctly diagnosed cases presented. Despite this practice not being recommended, more FPs than PTs recommended an imaging test in the initial management of RC tendinopathy (30% compared to 13%, p = 0.001) and adhesive capsulitis (51% compared to 22%, p = 0.02). For full-thickness RC tear and shoulder instability, up to 72% of FPs and 67% of PTs did not refer to a specialist for a surgical opinion, although recommended by CPGs. For RC tendinopathy, 26% of FPs and 2% of PTs (p < 0.001) would have prescribed a corticosteroid infiltration, which is not recommended in the initial management of this disorder. For adhesive capsulitis, significantly more FPs (76%) than PTs (62%) (p < 0.001) suggested an intra-articular corticosteroid infiltration, as recommended by CPGs. For all presented vignettes, up to 95% of family physicians adequately indicated they would refer patients for physiotherapy. In prioritizing rehabilitation interventions, up to 42% of PTs did not consider active exercises as a priority and up to 65% selected passive modalities that are not recommended for all shoulder pain vignettes. CONCLUSIONS: Most FPs and PTs were able to make adequate diagnoses and select appropriate treatments for shoulder pain, but practices opposed to evidence-based recommendations were chosen by several respondents. Further training of FPs and PTs may be needed to optimize primary care management of different shoulder disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Primary CareSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207