Barriers and facilitators of integrating physiotherapy into primary health care settings: A systematic scoping review of qualitative research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This scoping review investigated the barriers and facilitators to integrating physiotherapy into primary health care (PHC). Materials and methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, and REHABDATA were searched. Two independent reviewers were involved in screening, selecting, and extracting data. Data were synthesized using thematic analysis. Results: Of the 483 screened documents, 44 qualitative studies, primarily from high-income countries, were included. All of the studies had good methodological quality. Barriers and facilitators of integrating physiotherapy into PHC were extracted within the WHO six building blocks framework. In total, 41 items were identified as barriers to the integration process. The studies included 49 recommendations to facilitate integrating physiotherapy services into PHC. Conclusion: Integrating physiotherapy services into PHC faces many barriers. The most commonly suggested potential barriers are poor knowledge of physicians about physiotherapy, ineffective teamwork, physiotherapists' time constraints/workload, a lack of clarity over the role and knowledge of physiotherapists, unawareness of physiotherapy users about these services, and lack of intra- and inter-professional collaborations. The most commonly suggested recommendations to facilitate the integration process include: Clarifying the role of involved professionals, strengthening teamwork, improving intra- and inter-professional collaborations, and providing comprehensive training programs for physiotherapists.
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 | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".