Kinesiophobia among health professionals’ interventions: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health professionals are regularly confronted with patients suffering from a fear of movement-related pain (unknown as kinesiophobia). The fear-avoidance attitudes and beliefs of healthcare professionals are likely to play a key role in their patients' therapeutic approach. However, kinesiophobia among health professionals is a relatively young topic. This scoping review aims to explore and catalogue the extent of scientific research that identifies the causes and consequences of kinesiophobia among health professionals while they perform their interventions. The review was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute manual and the PRISMA method for a scoping review. The research was conducted in May 2024 using CINHAL, Medline and Sportdiscus databases with the search terms "fear-avoidance", "kinesiophobia", "pain-related" and "physical therapist". Out of 2,162 potential studies, thirteen articles were included. No study directly mentioned kinesiophobia among health professionals, but it was studied through fear-avoidance beliefs. Two-thirds of the articles indicate that professionals with fear-avoidance beliefs tend to refer their patients to other specialists less frequently and limit their patients' activity, despite treatment guidelines. Most of the studies found were physiotherapists' interventions for chronic back pain patients. The current review emphasizes the need for additional studies involving more healthcare professionals and diverse health conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".