MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411202962 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325098

Exploring physiotherapists’ knowledge and perception of exercise intensity in outpatient stroke rehabilitation: A qualitative study

2025· article· en· W4411202962 on OpenAlexaff
Félix Nindorera, Bénédicte Jean-Michel, Noémie C. Duclos, Krista L. Best, Stéphane Mandigout, Stéphanie Goncalves

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-NationaleCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité LavalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationPhysical therapyStroke (engine)MedicineQualitative researchPerceptionIntensity (physics)PsychologyNeurosciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To explore physiotherapists' knowledge and perception of exercise intensity and to identify factors influencing the attainment of recommended exercise intensity during rehabilitation sessions. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with physiotherapists (PTs) who provide stroke rehabilitation within outpatient private settings. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using an inductive content analysis approach. RESULTS: Twelve physiotherapists (five women; median age: 44.5 years; median experience: 20 years) who routinely provide stroke rehabilitation participated in the study. Three overarching themes emerged: knowledge about exercise intensity, perception of provided exercise intensity and factors influencing the achievement of recommended intensity. Although 92% of PTs recognized the importance of exercise intensity, only 33% were aware of exercise intensity guidelines. A lack of knowledge regarding exercise intensity assessment, grading, and monitoring was commonly reported. Nearly half (41%) of the PTs reported providing moderate-to-vigorous intensity exercise to stroke survivors. Limiting factors to achieving recommended exercise intensity included patient-related factors (e.g., stroke severity, motivation, cognitive impairments, fatigue), work environment constraints (e.g., limited space), and PT-related challenges (e.g., lack of knowledge, limited contact with doctors). On the other hand, facilitators included high motivation among stroke survivors, large workspace, equipment availability, and the use of group-based training modalities. CONCLUSION: Achieving the recommended exercise intensity in outpatient stroke rehabilitation is influenced by personal, environmental, and PT-related barriers. Multifactorial facilitators, such as improved knowledge, enhanced workspaces, interdisciplinary collaboration, and group-based training approaches, should be considered by stakeholders to ensure the effective implementation of evidence-based stroke rehabilitation practices in private settings. Future research involving PTs with diverse educational backgrounds are needed to strengthen the transferability of these findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→