“Culture matters”: Nigerian physiotherapists’ perception on cultural considerations in older adults’ mobility care – a qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Mobility care is essential, given that mobility is an independent predictor of various health and social outcomes. While multiple factors, including culture, influence the mobility of older adults, there is a lack of understanding of how to incorporate culture into older adults’ mobility assessment, intervention and prevention.Objective To explore the perspectives of Nigerian physiotherapists (PTs) on how culture influences mobility assessment, intervention and prevention among community-dwelling older adults in Nigeria.Methods We employed Sandelowski’s approach to descriptive qualitative method and purposively sampled 29 Nigerian PTs with at least 2 years of clinical experience working with older adults with mobility limitations. Each PT was invited to participate in a single, semi-structured interview, which was audio-recorded and conducted either in-person, via Zoom or telephone, lasting between 45–60 min. Data were analysed using conventional content analysis.Results Two overarching themes emerged: Cultural Antecedents and Socially-Informed Cultural Contributors to Mobility Care. Cultural antecedents revealed that patients preferred a PT of the same sex, emphasised the necessity of deep cultural interactions, and highlighted the role of cultural interpreters—rather than language translators—as essential for integrating culture into the mobility care of older adults. Socially-informed cultural contributors included cultural perceptions of pain, the influence of traditional attire on mobility, and stigma around assistive devices.Conclusion Findings highlight the interplay of cultural values, societal norms and clinical practices in shaping mobility care. This study underscores the importance of integrating cultural competence into physiotherapy education and clinical practice globally.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".