Evaluation of a New Advanced Physiotherapy Practice Model of Care for Patients in a Geriatric Pain Management Clinic: A Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction New models of care (MOC) involving physiotherapists as first-contact practitioners in advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) roles aim to improve access and quality of care. The aim of this study was to describe a novel APP MOC in a geriatric pain clinic, regarding wait and care offered as well as patients’ pain, disability, and satisfaction.Methods This observational study recruited 65 participants from a geriatric pain clinic in Montréal (Canada). Several MOC related variables were collected and compared with usual physician care.Results Participants had significantly reduced wait times compared to physician care (55.9 days, 95%CI: 30.4-81.3). At 3-month follow-up, participants reported reduced pain severity and interference (mean reduction of 0.6/10, 95% CI: 0.1-1.1 and 0.7/10, 95% CI: 0.03-1.4). High satisfaction with APP care was reported (VSQ-9: 8.9/10, SD ± 3.6).Conclusion Initial data from this MOC reports reduced wait times and high satisfaction while improvements in clinical outcomes were observed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".