2191 Physiotherapists’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators to effective community provision after hip fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction to investigate physiotherapists’ perspectives of effective community provision following hip fracture. Methods qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 community physiotherapists across England. Thematic analysis drawing on the Theoretical Domains Framework identified barriers and facilitators to implementation of effective provision. Interviews were complemented by process mapping community provision in one London borough, to identify points of care where suggested interventions are in place and/or could be implemented. Results four themes were identified: ineffective coordination of care systems, ineffective patient stratification, insufficient staff recruitment and retention approaches and inhibitory fear avoidance behaviours. To enhance care coordination, participants suggested improving access to social services and occupational therapists, maximising multidisciplinary communication through online notation, extended physiotherapy roles, orthopaedic-specific roles and seven-day working. Participants advised the importance of stratifying patients on receipt of referrals, at assessment and into appropriately matched interventions. To mitigate insufficient staff recruitment and retention, participants proposed return-to-practice streams, apprenticeship schemes, university engagement, combined acute-community rotations and improving job description advertisements. To reduce effects of fear avoidance behaviour on rehabilitation, participants proposed the use of patient-specific goals, patient and carer education, staff education in psychological strategies or community psychologist access. Process mapping of one London borough identified points of care where suggested interventions to overcome barriers were in place and/or could be implemented. Conclusion physiotherapists propose that effective provision of community physiotherapy following hip fracture could be improved by refining care coordination, utilising stratification techniques, employing enhanced recruitment and retainment strategies and addressing fear avoidance behaviours.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".