Physiotherapists’ role in physical activity promotion: Qualitative reflections of patients and providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiotherapists are often important figures in the lives of people with physical disabilities and chronic conditions, yet gaps in understanding remain regarding how therapists promote physical activity and leverage existing community-based recreation programs. We used qualitative methods to explore experiences of physiotherapists as well as individuals with disabilities and chronic conditions receiving physiotherapy, with a focus on strategies to promote physical activity and the extent that therapists leverage community-based resources and programs. Semi-structured interviews were completed with nine physiotherapists (six American and three Canadian) and eight individuals with a physical disability (all Americans). Participants reflected on the salience of physical activity promotion throughout physiotherapy but also highlighted barriers. Three themes explored idealized and problematic experiences with physical activity promotion in therapy: 1) individualized promotion of physical activity; 2) increasing physical activity options for patients via engagement with the community; and 3) options for physical activity in the community. Differences were also noted between therapist and patient participants and when contrasting across countries (i.e. funding models). For instance, physiotherapists in publicly funded contexts relied more heavily on engagement with accessible community-based programming than privately funded counterparts. Therapists should further integrate patient perspectives when considering physical activity promotion. Additional research is needed to explore how therapists incorporate community-based programs into health promotion while further understanding the extent that these strategies align with the scope of physiotherapy practice in varying contexts.
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 | 0.022 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".