Knee osteoarthritis patient perspectives of their care in an australian private physiotherapy setting: a qualitative exploratory interview study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand perceptions that knee osteoarthritis patients have regarding their experiences of guideline-based recommendations within their care received from physiotherapists in private practice. METHODS: A qualitative semi-structured interview study nested within a larger trial auditing care provided by physiotherapists. Recruited adults ≥ 45 years with knee osteoarthritis across nine primary care physiotherapy practices. Interview questions were anchored around the core elements recommended in guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis and patient perceptions of these were analysed using both content and thematic qualitative analysis approaches. Patient satisfaction with care received was asked at the time of interview. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients volunteered for the study (mean 60 years, 58% female). Analysis identified that physiotherapists focused on treating symptoms through quadriceps strengthening exercises, which patients found to be effective, though focussed less on other aspects of evidenced-based care. Patient's perceived treatment to be effective in relieving pain and enabling them to stay active and they appreciated the positive role that their physiotherapist provided in alleviating their concerns. Overall, patients were satisfied with their physiotherapy care but would have liked more specific osteoarthritis education and longer-term management. CONCLUSION: The description of the physiotherapy-related care received by people with knee osteoarthritis aligns with guideline recommendations, though mainly for strength-related exercise prescription. Despite some perceived shortfalls in care, patients do appear to be satisfied. However, improvements in patient outcomes may be possible if more elements of guideline-base care are regularly provided, including enhancing osteoarthritis education and fostering behaviour change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12620000188932.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".