Physical therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis: the patients’ perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the duration, frequency, and content of individual physical therapy (PT) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHOD: In this cross-sectional study, an electronic questionnaire aimed at people with RA and axSpA was distributed through various communication channels of the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. It comprised questions on sociodemographic and health characteristics, received PT (currently and/or in the past year) and, if applicable, its duration, frequency, and content (active exercises, manual treatment, physical modalities, and/or counselling/education). RESULTS: The study included 257 and 94 patients with self-reported diagnoses of RA and axSpA, of whom 163 (63%) and 77 (82%) currently or had recently received individual PT. The duration of individual PT was long-term (> 3 months) in 79% of RA and 83% of axSpA patients, with an average frequency of once per week in most. Although active exercises and counselling/education were each reported by ≥ 73% of the patients with RA and axSpA who received long-term individual PT, passive treatment modalities were also often offered (≥ 89%), in particular massage, kinesiotaping, and/or passive mobilization. The same pattern was seen in patients receiving short-term PT. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with RA and axSpA received PT currently or in the past year, usually individually, long-term, and at a frequency of once a week. Although active exercises and education are recommended in guidelines, passive treatment options that are not advised were relatively often reported. An implementation study to identify barriers and facilitators regarding adherence to clinical practice guidelines seems warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".