Patient and clinician perspectives of online-delivered exercise programmes for chronic musculoskeletal conditions: a mixed-methods systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To synthesize common or differing perceptions of patients' and clinicians' that influence uptake of online-delivered exercise programmes (ODEPs) for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. METHODS: Eight databases were searched from inception to April 2023 for studies including (1) patients with and/or clinicians delivering ODEPs for chronic MSK conditions, and (2) synchronous ODEPs, where information is exchanged simultaneously (mode A); asynchronous ODEPs, with at least one synchronous feature (mode B); or no ODEPs, documenting past experiences and/or likelihood of participating in an ODEP (mode C). Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists were used to assess study quality. Perceptions of patients' and clinicians' influencing uptake of ODEPs were extracted. Quantitative and qualitative data were synthesised and integrated. RESULTS: = 6). Sixteen of the 23 identified perceptions related to satisfaction, acceptability, usability, and effectiveness were common, with 70% of perceptions facilitating uptake and 30% hindering uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need to promote targeted education for patients and clinicians addressing interconnected perceptions, and to develop evidence-based perception-centred strategies encouraging integrated care and guideline-based management of chronic MSK conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".