Factors influencing interprofessional practices of physiotherapists working in private settings with people with low back pain: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Collaboration and interprofessional practices are highly valued in health systems everywhere, partly based on the rationale that they improve outcomes of care for people with complex health problems, such as low back pain. Research in the area of low back pain also supports the involvement of different health professionals in the interventions for people who present this condition. The aim of this studywas to identify factors influencing the interprofessional practices of physiotherapists working in private settings with people with low back pain. Relevance: Physiotherapists, like other health professionals, are encouraged to engage in interprofessional practices in their dailywork. However, to date, very little is known of their interprofessional practices, especially in private settings. Understanding physiotherapists' interprofessional practices and their influencing factors will notably advance knowledge relating to the organisation of physiotherapy services for people with low back pain. Participants: Participants in this study were 13 physiotherapists including 10 women and 3 men, having between 3 and 22 years of professional experience, and working in one of 10 regions of the Province of Quebec (Canada). In order to obtain maximal variation in the perspectives, participants were selected using a recruitment matrix including three criteria: duration of professional experience, work location, and physical proximity with other professionals. Methods: Thiswas a descriptive qualitative study using faceto- face semi-structured interviews as the main method of data collection. An interview guide was developed based on an evidence-derived frame of reference. Each interview lasted between 55 and 95 minutes and was transcribed verbatim. Analysis: Qualitative analyses took the form of content analysis, encompassing data coding and general thematic regrouping. NVivo version 8 was used to assist data organisation and analysis. Results: Multiple factors influencing the interprofessional practices of physiotherapists were identified. The main factors include the consulting person's health condition, the extent of knowledge on health professionals' roles and fields of practice, the proximity and availability of professional resources, as well as daily work schedules. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the influence of multiple factors on physiotherapists' interprofessional practices, including professional practice and organisational issues. However, further research on the interprofessional practices of physiotherapists is still required. Research priorities targeting the views of other health professionals, as well as those of services users, would enhance our comprehension of interprofessional practices of physiotherapists. Implications: This study provides new insights that improve our understanding of the interprofessional practices of physiotherapists working in private settings with people with low back pain, more specifically on the factors influencing these practices. Based on our findings, implementing changes such as improving current and future health professionals' knowledge of the fields and roles of other health professionals through training may contribute to positively influencing interprofessional practices. Keywords: Interprofessional practices; Private practice; Low back pain Funding acknowledgements: This research was supported in part by a B.E. Schnurr Memorial Fund Research Grant administered by the Physiotherapy Foundation of Canada, as well as from a clinical research partnership in physiotherapy between the Quebec Rehabilitation Research Network (REPAR) and the Ordre professionnel de la physiothérapie du Québec (OPPQ). KP received doctoral-level scholarships from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST). CE Dionne is a FRSQ senior Research Scholar. Ethics approval: This project was approved by the ethics research committee of the Institut de réadaptation en déficience physique de Québec.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".