Physiotherapists Description of Patient-Centered Care, and Barriers and Facilitators Experienced to Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-centered care (PCC) is a growing standard for healthcare delivery due to the benefits to patient autonomy. Lacking a cohesive definition in the physiotherapy literature, it is also lacking in implementation. Employing interpretive description with semi-structured interviews, the goal was to understand how physiotherapists drawn from private for-profit clinics in Canada describe PCC, and barriers and facilitators to providing it. Results included requiring person-centered communication in PCC, seeing Health holistically, centering the patient in care, and being a skill that becomes clearer with practice experience. Barriers included: lack of practitioner reflexivity, patient not desiring self-directed care, and limited access to interprofessional care. Facilitators included: time available with patient, practice community support, learning from experience, continued education, and practitioner emotional resilience. Results display how PCC is described by participants from private physiotherapy care in Canada, and inform us on further exploration around how to best facilitated PCC in Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".