Social support from the physiotherapist and the therapeutic relationship in physiotherapy: bridging theory to practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Therapeutic relationship and social support are critical components in physiotherapy that shape patient outcomes. However, defining these constructs, discerning their similarities and differences, and measuring them pose challenges. This article aims to facilitate scientific and clinical advancement on social support and the therapeutic relationship in physiotherapy by (a) providing conceptual clarity, (b) discussing measurement tools, and (c) offering practical recommendations for the deliberate incorporation of these constructs in clinical practice. METHODS: This is a perspective paper drawing on examples from existing research. KEY RESULTS: Assessing the nature and strength of social support and promoting naturally occurring social support networks are practical ways for physiotherapists to foster social support in physiotherapy clinical practice. Physiotherapists can offer direct support, facilitate the development of an individual's social skills, and promote participation in group activities. To strengthen the therapeutic relationship, it is important to maintain good communication, foster connectedness with the patient, demonstrate professional skills, and adopt a reflective practice. Physiotherapists are encouraged to establish clear roles and responsibilities, prioritize individualized patient-centered care, and involve patients in shared decision-making, ensuring congruence in goals and expectations. Willingness to dedicate time and energy within and beyond direct patient-therapist interactions can foster connections. Moreover, using the body - which is the main point of contact with patients - and physical touch can help physiotherapists to connect with patients. Finally, physiotherapists must be prepared to address and mend any conflicts which can impact the relationship's trajectory. CONCLUSION: Social support and therapeutic relationships are complementary aspects of one's health care, and it is crucial to purposefully account for both in physiotherapy practice to optimize person-centered care and rehabilitation outcomes.
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 | 0.026 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".