Health promotion in chronic conditions: Colombian physiotherapists’ experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background During the last two decades there has been a call for physiotherapists (PTs) to increase health promotion (HP) interventions in their practice to optimize health and well-being. However, little is known about the characteristics of such practices. The aim of this study was to provide an in-depth examination of the experiences of Colombian PTs regarding their HP practices in chronic health conditions and lifestyle related risk factors. Methods An interpretive description qualitative approach was used to explore the experiences and perspectives of Colombian PTs in HP. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of PTs. Thematic analysis was conducted with the assistance of NVivo software. Results Twelve participants were interviewed. We found three main themes: navigating the health system, current physiotherapists’ health promotion practices; and improving health promotion practice. Participants described restrictions to HP practice due to various systemic barriers and lack of autonomy as well as the insufficient recognition of the role of PTs in this field. Participants recognized the important role of HP in health and wellbeing and how their perception of HP has evolved throughout their careers. They also considered they are the ideal professionals to lead HP programs related to chronic conditions and associated lifestyle risk factors. However, they felt they needed more education and skills, placing the responsibility for this, as well as advocacy for recognizing their role in this field, on professional associations and academia. Conclusions The practice of HP in physiotherapy is hindered by the lack of recognition of their potential in this area and the barriers imposed by the health system. It is necessary to explore ways to enhance the recognition of the role of PTs in HP and the development of HP skills. Key messages • The characteristics of the health system shape health promotion practices in physiotherapy regarding chronic conditions and related lifestyle risk factors. • More education and awareness of the potential role of PTs in HP in chronic conditions is needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".