Physical Therapists' Expectations Regarding the Recovery of Work‐Disabled Individuals Aged 55 and Over
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to document physical therapy professionals' expectations regarding the recovery of work-disabled individuals aged 55 and over with a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD). METHODS: Using a qualitative descriptive method, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of physical therapy professionals. The Think Aloud method was used with two fictional vignettes describing work-disabled women (a 57-year-old and a 37-year-old) to explore the participants' recovery expectations. The two vignettes were compared to highlight recovery expectations related specifically to ageing workers. RESULTS: Twelve physical therapy professionals participated. Most reported more unfavourable expectations regarding the recovery of the worker aged 55 and over. Physical therapists indicated that higher anxiety-related symptoms, lower level of engagement, and the effect of ageing on general health lowered their recovery expectations. Also, perceptions of patient psychosocial risk factors were viewed as an important negative influence on recovery expectations. Early-career participants were more likely to perceive the older worker's characteristics as negatively influencing their recovery expectations compared with those of the younger worker. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that physical therapists tend to report lower recovery expectations for these older workers. This study offers deeper insight into how patient age may influence clinicians' recovery expectations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".