Assessment of the economic value of physiotherapy treatment for economically effective results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to compare the pricing of physiotherapy treatment in various countries of the world. A comparative analysis of the cost of physiotherapy was conducted in the United Kingdom, Germany, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ireland, Canada, Indonesia, New Zealand, and Australia. The cost of physiotherapy was calculated considering 10 sessions per course of treatment in each clinic. The study determined that the cost of physiotherapy and massage varied substantially depending on the region and the medical institution. In the London clinic, the cost of 10 sessions of physiotherapy ranges from USD 721.62 to USD 1,818.49, depending on the duration of the procedures, and 10 massage sessions – from USD 787.23 to USD 1,115.24. In Switzerland, the same 45-minute course of physiotherapy costs USD 1,150, and an hour-long massage – USD 1,100. Financial costs for these procedures are substantially lower in Slovenia and Indonesia. In a Slovenian clinic, a course of 10 sessions of physiotherapy costs from USD 331.1 to USD 551.83, and massage – from USD 364.21 to USD 540.79. In Indonesia, the same course of physiotherapy is offered for USD 590.21-780.95, and massage – for USD 394.75-592.12. The cost of physiotherapy and massage procedures was directly related to the level of life and economic conditions in the country. In the United Kingdom and Switzerland, high health costs are explained by a high level of life and a developed medical infrastructure, while in Slovenia and Indonesia, services are more accessible to the public. Based on this, the most economically profitable solution for physiotherapy and massage is the introduction of batch sessions, which reduces the cost per session overall. In addition, financial costs are reduced due to reduced time for the procedure and the use of telemedicine during the rehabilitation session. This study helps to assess the pricing of physiotherapy procedures and further optimise national schemes with the formation of the most financially effective programmes
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".