Clarifying the characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs for adults with chronic low back pain: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interprofessional rehabilitation programs are recommended by practice guidelines based on their effectiveness in improving health-related quality of life, pain, and function for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). However, the most appropriate program characteristics are poorly described in the literature. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to synthesize the characteristics of interprofessional rehabilitation programs for people living with CLBP. METHODS: The scoping review was guided by the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, which has been further enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were searched to identify relevant published studies. RESULTS: Out of 13370 articles identified through our search, seventy-nine studies fulfilled our eligibility criteria. In the majority of the studies (n = 75), interprofessional rehabilitation programs for people with CLBP consisted of two or more of the following interventions: physical activity and exercise (n = 68), education (n = 61), psychotherapy (n = 52), and vocational support/advice (n = 31). In a few studies describing the underlying theories, the biopsychosocial model, which emphasizes the need to address social, psychological, and physical components in the management of CLBP, was the most often cited theoretical framework. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in how interprofessional rehabilitation programs for people with CLBP are conceptualized and evaluated. A detailed description of the intervention evaluated, and the underlying theoretical frameworks was also lacking in most studies. We recommend the use of a consistent term and components aligned with practice guidelines.
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 | 0.050 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".