Engaging patients through education: a modified-Delphi consultation to develop recommendations for patient education interventions in the management of subacromial pain syndrome in physical therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To develop recommendations to support the range of patient education interventions relevant in the management of patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) in physical therapy.Materials and methods A 3-round modified Delphi consultation was used to obtain consensus agreement on the relevance of 12 preliminary recommendations. These were developed from a literature review and an expert consultation on general educational strategies and specific patient education interventions for the management of SAPS. The analysis assessed the rate of consensus on the relevance of these recommendations. Delphi panelists were rehabilitation professionals including physical (n = 21) and occupational therapists (n = 1) with SAPS experience, and patient-partners (n = 2) presenting shoulder pain.Results The Delphi consultation resulted in 13 revised consensus recommendations. Six consensus recommendations addressed general educational strategies to facilitate patient education, including teaching methods and materials, and seven addressed specific educational interventions, including teaching symptom self-management and tailoring activities and participation. These recommendations were incorporated into a clinical decision-making tool to support the selection of the most relevant patient education interventions.Conclusion The recommendations developed in this study are relevant to guide physical therapist’s clinical decisions making regarding interventions using patient education for SAPS. They promote active engagement and empowerment of individuals with SAPS.
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 | 0.141 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".