Physiotherapist- and peer-led physical activity counseling for people with spinal cord injury: a cross-sectional study of barriers and facilitators to implementation in the rehabilitation to community transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A large decrease in physical activity (PA) is typically observed among people with spinal cord injury (SCI) upon discharge from in-hospital rehabilitation. Physiotherapists and SCI peers are well-positioned to intervene at this critical timepoint; however,the implementation of coordinated PA interventions between these two groups have yet to be studied. PURPOSE: To identify barriers and facilitators that affect the implementation of coordinated PA counseling among physiotherapists and SCI peers during the transition from in-hospital rehabilitation to the community. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine physiotherapists and two SCI peer coaches, using an interview guide informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Interviews were transcribed and coded deductively onto the TDF with themes and subthemes generated by inductive content analysis. RESULTS: The most salient TDF domains were social influences, environmental context and resources, and skills. Specifically, participants identified challenges such as addressing patient barriers and continual staff onboarding. Facilitators included the availability of peer coaches with lived experience, support from champions of the PA counseling intervention, group training sessions for physiotherapists and SCI peer coaches, and an adaptable PA counseling form as a conversation guide. CONCLUSION: Successful coordination of services provided during the transition from in-hospital rehabilitation to the community may be strengthened by 1) providing resources and training that guide both content and delivery of PA counseling and 2) a referral system that leverages the strengths of both physiotherapists and peer support.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".