Use of standardised outcome measures among physiotherapists in French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The use of standardised assessment tools is a fundamental aspect of good clinical practice. However, to our knowledge, no study has documented the use of standardised assessment tools in physiotherapy in French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa. Objectives: Documenting the use of standardised outcome measures in physiotherapy in French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa. Method: Our cross-sectional survey used an online self-questionnaire on facilitators and barriers to the use of standardised outcome measures, distributed to physiotherapists in French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa. Results: A total of 241 physiotherapists working in French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa responded to the survey. The most represented countries were Benin (36.9%), Cameroon (14.1%), and Burkina Faso (10.8%). Although 99% of participants reported using standardised outcome measures, only 27% of the respondents used them systematically (all the time). The most reported facilitators included the recognition that standardised outcome measures help to determine whether treatment is effective, help to guide care, and improve communication with patients. The most significant barriers were the lack of time, unavailability of the standardised outcome measures, and non-sensitivity of measures to patients’ cultural and ethnic concerns. There was a higher proportion of use in the middle age group (30–40) ( p = 0.02) and a lower proportion of use in physiotherapists simultaneously working in public and private sectors ( p = 0.05). Conclusion: Standardised outcome measures are still not widely used by physiotherapists in French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa. Clinical implications: The perceived barriers and facilitators could help to develop strategies to improve the systematic use of outcome measures in French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".