First-contact physiotherapists’ perceived competency in a new model of care for low back pain patients: a mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A new advanced practice model of care enables French physiotherapists to perform medical acts for low back pain (LBP) patients as first-contact physiotherapists (FCPs). Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the self-perceived competency of FCPs and to further explore factors underpinning this feeling. Methods: A mixed-methods explanatory sequential design was conducted. A survey was used to self-assess the perceived competency of FCPs in performing medical tasks. Semi-structured interviews were then performed to explore determining factors of perceived competency. Inductive thematic analysis was performed. Results: Nine FCPs answered the survey and were interviewed (mean age 40.1, standard deviation [SD]: ±10.0). FCPs felt very competent with making medical diagnosis (3.44/4, SD: ±0.53), analgesic prescription (3.11, SD: ±0.78) and referring onward to physiotherapy (3.78, SD: ±0.55). They did not feel competent with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug prescription (2.78, SD: ±0.67) and issuing sick leave certificate (2.67, SD: ±1.0). The main identified influencing factors were previous FCPs' experience, training, knowledge, collaboration with family physicians, high responsibility and risk management associated with decision-making. Conclusion: French FCPs appeared to have the necessary skills to directly manage LBP patients without medical referral. Future training focusing on analgesic prescription and issuing sick leave certificate is however needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".