↓ Skip to main content

Physiotherapy for injured workers in Canada: are insurers’ and clinics’ policies threatening good quality and equity of care? Results of a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Physiotherapy for injured workers in Canada: are insurers’ and clinics’ policies threatening good quality and equity of care? Results of a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3491-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Hudon, Matthew Hunt, Debbie Ehrmann Feldman

Abstract

In recent years, significant efforts have been made to improve the provision of care for compensated injured workers internationally. However, despite increasing efforts at implementing best practices in this field, some studies show that policies overseeing the organisation of care for injured workers can have perverse influences on healthcare providers' practices and can prevent workers from receiving the best care possible. The influence of these policies on physiotherapists' practices has yet to be investigated. Our objectives were thus to explore the influence of 1) workers' compensation boards' and 2) physiotherapy clinics' policies on the care physiotherapists provide to workers with musculoskeletal injuries in three large Canadian provinces. The Interpretive Description framework, a qualitative methodological approach, guided this inquiry. Forty participants (30 physiotherapists and 10 leaders and administrators from physiotherapy professional groups and workers' compensation boards) were recruited in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec to participate in an in-depth interview. Inductive analysis was conducted using constant comparative techniques. Narratives from participants show that policies of workers' compensation boards and individual physiotherapy clinics have significant impacts on physiotherapists' clinical practices. Policies found at both levels often place physiotherapists in uncomfortable positions where they cannot always do what they believe to be best for their patients. Because of these policies, treatments provided to compensated injured workers markedly differ from those provided to other patients receiving physiotherapy care at the same clinic. Workers' compensation board policies such as reimbursement rates, end points for treatment and communication mechanisms, and clinic policies such as physiotherapists' remuneration schemes and restrictions on the choice of professionals had negative influences on care. Policies that were viewed as positive were board policies that recognize, promote and support physiotherapists' duties and clinics that provide organisational support for administrative tasks. In Canada, workers' compensation play a significant role in financing physiotherapy care for people injured at work. Despite the best intentions in promoting evidence-based guidelines and procedures regarding rehabilitation care for injured workers, complex policy factors currently limit the application of these recommendations in practice. Research that targets these policies could contribute to significant changes in clinical settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Professor 4 6%
Librarian 3 5%
Other 16 25%
Unknown 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Unspecified 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 21 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#4,178,285
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,953
of 7,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,200
of 335,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#71
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.