MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407164837 · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2025.103279

Barriers and facilitators to exercise-based rehabilitation in people with musculoskeletal conditions: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4407164837 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hugo Eduardo de Amorim, Marcos de Noronha, Jayden Hunter, Stephen Barrett, Michael Kingsley

Bibliographic record

VenueMusculoskeletal Science and Practice · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRea Charitable Trust
KeywordsRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exercise-based rehabilitation is the first line of treatment for people with musculoskeletal conditions. However, uptake and adherence are suboptimal, compromising the success of rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: To identify the barriers and facilitators that influence adherence to exercise-based rehabilitation in people with musculoskeletal conditions. Additionally, to identify the methods and instruments used to determine these barriers and facilitators. DESIGN: Systematic review METHODS: Five databases from inception to May 2024 using terms related to exercise, musculoskeletal conditions, methods, barriers and facilitators. Risk of bias was assessed using either the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane risk of bias tool. Using an inductive thematic approach, barriers and facilitators were grouped into intrapersonal, interpersonal and community factors. Methods/instruments were categorized into three groups, being questionnaires, interviews and focus-groups. RESULTS: Eighty-one of 8380 studies were included. The majority of studies were of good or fair quality (95%). The most frequently identified barriers were lack of time (53%), pain (45%) and health (40%). The most frequent facilitators were self-efficacy (42%), perceived health benefits (32%) and previous experiences (30%). The methods used were interviews (n = 53), questionnaires (n = 44) and focus groups (n = 10). CONCLUSION: Most barriers and facilitators to exercise were related to intrapersonal factors. Although there is a lack of consistency in instruments used, the reported barriers and facilitators were similar across studies. Clinicians and researchers should consider intrapersonal factors when promoting exercise-based rehabilitation programs. Applying a theoretical framework to investigate barriers and facilitators to exercise-based rehabilitation in people with musculoskeletal conditions might assist practitioners to prioritize their practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusculoskeletal Science and PracticeSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207