Salutogenesis: Implications for Maintaining a Psychologically Informed Physical Therapy Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pathogenesis, the study of disease origins and causes, looks retrospectively at how to eliminate illnesses once they occur and has been the prevalent approach in Western medicine. Salutogenesis, by comparison, is the study of health origins and causes and looks prospectively at how to create health. There are many psychosocial instruments used to measure the personal factors that influence salutogenesis. However, the salutogenic model has rarely been studied in physical therapy settings, even though physical therapy educators and researchers are currently describing the importance of a psychologically informed practice.\nTwenty-five psychological constructs within the salutogenic model were evaluated for this review. The evaluative process examined the constructs based on: 1) Measurability, determined by the reliability and validity of the outcome measures; 2) Relevance to physical therapy, determined by the construct’s ability to address learnable skills that can be influenced by physical therapists; and 3) Practicality, determined by the ability to measure the construct in a clinical setting using common practice patterns. Of the twenty-five constructs evaluated for this review, three met the above criteria and were chosen for further examination: self-efficacy, resilience, and sense of coherence.\nThe results suggest that these three constructs have potential use in physical therapy. Using one or more of these constructs to attain relevant psychosocial information about patients may assist physical therapists in determining appropriate interventions. Therefore, although this literature review proposes the clinical use of self-efficacy, resilience, and sense of coherence in physical therapy, further research is recommended to develop their optimal use.
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 | 0.050 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".