MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408098411 · doi:10.2196/66744

Patients’ Experience With Evaluation by Both a Musculoskeletal Physician and Physical Therapist in the Same Digital Visit: Survey Study

2025· article· en· W4408098411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mary I. O’Connor, Carolyn Chudy, Kaitlyn Cooney Peters, Megan Dorak Ribaudo, Carrie McCulloch, J. Aguilar, TE Taylor, Ryan A. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapistPhysical therapyMedicineAlternative medicineFamily medicinePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients undergoing evaluation for musculoskeletal concerns are often seen by a physician and physical therapist in the in-person setting in a sequential manner. This process typically delays the onset of nonoperative care, inclusive of physical therapy, and creates the risk of inadequate clinical collaboration between physician and physical therapist. To address these issues, we designed a novel initial patient evaluation to a group visit in which both a specialty-trained musculoskeletal physician and physical therapist simultaneously evaluate a patient together in the digital encounter. Objective: The aim of the study is to gain insights from patients on their experience with this innovative digital simultaneous musculoskeletal medical doctor and physical therapist (MD+PT) visit format for the initial evaluation of musculoskeletal concerns. Methods: An electronic 7-question survey was sent to 750 patients who completed an MD+PT visit asking them to comment on prior musculoskeletal evaluations and their experience with the MD+PT format. Results: In total, 195 (26%) patients responded to the survey with the frequent body regions of diagnosis being lumbar spine (n=65), knee (n=32), shoulder (n=21), cervical spine (n=20), hip (n=14), and hand (n=11). Most patients had prior musculoskeletal experience with a physician or nurse practitioner (171/195, 87.7%) or physical therapist (148/195, 75.9%) with nearly all such encounters in the in-person setting (161/171,94.2% for physician or nurse practitioner and 144/148, 97.3% for physical therapy). Only 3.1% (6/193) of patients reported seeing both a physician and physical therapist during the same in-person visit. Patients rated the simultaneous MD+PT visit very favorably: this type of digital evaluation saved them time (179/192, 93.2%) and permitted them to promptly start their treatment plan (174/192, 90.6%). Overall, 87.5% (168/192) rated the MD+PT visit as enjoyable, and 92.2% (177/192) responded that it increased their confidence with understanding their medical condition and how to start treating it. Conclusions: Our early experience with the evaluation of patients with musculoskeletal conditions by both a specialty-trained musculoskeletal physician and physical therapist simultaneously in the same digital visit resulted in patients reporting a very positive experience with high satisfaction, engagement, and confidence in understanding their diagnosis and how to start treating it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMusculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207