Patients and physiotherapy professionals’ perspectives on group-based treatments: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physiotherapy is a recommended treatment for a wide range of conditions. However, waitlists can delay access to care, leading to poorer patient outcomes and added strain on healthcare systems. Group-based physiotherapy treatments have shown comparable clinical effectiveness to individual care and may help address these challenges. Despite this potential, their implementation in practice remains limited. Therefore, this systematic review aims to: (1) identify the determinants of use, intention to use, satisfaction, attitudes and experience with group-based treatments of patients and physiotherapy professionals, such as physiotherapists or physiotherapy technologists and (2) assess the factors that may influence patients' and professionals' preferences for group-based treatments over individual treatments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic searches were conducted on 6 September 2024 in the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO CINAHL and Cochrane databases to identify studies published in French or English, in line with the language proficiency of the review team. Eligible studies will use quantitative, qualitative or mixed-method designs and report original data on the use or intention to use, satisfaction with, attitudes toward and experiences with group-based physiotherapy treatments, from either patients or physiotherapy professionals. Studies will be screened by two independent reviewers, with any discrepancy resolved through consensus or by involving a third reviewer. Data will be extracted from the included studies by two independent reviewers using a predefined data extraction form, with any discrepancy similarly resolved. For quantitative findings, the direction of the relationship between the outcomes and their determinants will be reported, along with the magnitude and significance of the coefficients, where available. For qualitative findings, relevant quotes will be provided to illustrate the relationship between the outcomes and their determinants. All included studies will be assessed by two independent reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, with any discrepancy resolved again through consensus or by involving a third reviewer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review as it involves the collection of data from existing publications only. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presentations at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024574513.
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 | 0.092 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.009 |
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".