Current practice, guideline adherence, and barriers to implementation for Achilles tendinopathy rehabilitation: a survey of physical therapists and people with Achilles tendinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore clinical practice patterns of physical therapists (PTs) who treat people with Achilles tendinopathy (AT), and identify perceived barriers and facilitators for prescribing and engaging with therapeutic exercise among PTs and people with AT. Methods: Two cross-sectional surveys were electronically distributed between November 2021 and May 2022; one survey was designed for PTs while the second was for people with AT. Survey respondents answered questions regarding their physical therapy training and current practice (PTs), injury history and management (people with AT), and perceived barriers and facilitators (PTs and people with AT). Results: 341 PTs and 74 people with AT completed the surveys. In alignment with clinical practice guidelines, more than 94% of PTs surveyed (97% of whom had some form of advanced musculoskeletal training) prioritise patient education and therapeutic exercise. Patient compliance, patient knowledge, and the slow nature of recovery were barriers to prescribing therapeutic exercise reported by PTs, while time, physical resources, and a perceived lack of short-term treatment effectiveness were barriers for people with AT. Conclusions: Consistent with clinical practice guidelines, PTs with advanced training reported prioritising therapeutic exercise and education for managing AT. However, both PTs and people with AT identified many barriers to prescribing or engaging with therapeutic exercise. By addressing misconceptions about the time burden and ineffectiveness of exercise, and by overcoming access issues to exercise space and equipment, PTs may be able to improve intervention adherence and subsequently outcomes for people with AT.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".