THE IDEAL PHYSICAL THERAPIST FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH LIMB LOSS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective rehabilitation after limb loss is necessary to maximize function and promote independence. Physical therapists (PT) are one of the primary drivers of the rehabilitation process. While general physical therapy knowledge and abilities have been shown to be important to the rehabilitation process, it is unclear what individuals with limb loss value in their PT’s. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand the elements that define an ideal PT from the perspective of individuals with limb loss. METHODOLOGY: Mixed-method design consisting of a 20-item web-based survey and semi-structured interviews that were administered to individuals 18 years or older, who spoke English, and had a history of lower limb loss. FINDINGS: Individuals with limb loss describe an ideal PT as promoting a therapeutic alliance, having specialized knowledge, and collaborating with a prosthetist. Knowledge of the PT as it relates to limb loss was found to be both the greatest facilitator and barrier to the rehabilitation process. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of those with limb loss, an ideal PT promotes a strong therapeutic alliance through communication, has specialized knowledge when it comes to the limb loss rehabilitation process, and collaborates with the prosthetist to problem-solve throughout the rehabilitation process. Layman's Abstract Individuals with limb loss require specialized care from a variety of health care providers to maximize function and mobility. Rehabilitation is generally administered by physical therapists along with other members of the medical team, including prosthetists. Physical therapists have generalized knowledge about limb loss management, however, there is limited access to physical therapists who are specialized in this area. It is not understood if the lack of specialization is a concern for individuals in the limb loss community. Therefore, our study explored what individuals with limb loss would define as the ideal physical therapist. We reviewed responses from surveys and interviews from individuals with limb loss and found that they value the specialized knowledge of the physical therapist, as well as the therapeutic relationship between themselves, the physical therapist, and the prosthetist. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/42093/32281 How To Cite: Lee D.J, Gambale A, Nisani M, Miller C, Leung E, Rodgers M, et al. The ideal physical therapist from the perspective of individuals with limb loss. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2023; Volume 6, Issue 1, No.4. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v6i1.42093 Corresponding Author: Daniel J. Lee, PhD Department of Physical Therapy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA. E-Mail: daniel.lee.8@stonybrook.edu ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1805-2936
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".