Futureproof
Menu

US dataswitch to UK

Physical Therapists

planning, preparing, directing, supervising, assessing and communicating with supportive personnel and testing and measuring patient's strength. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: administering manual exercises, massage or traction to help relieve pain is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

What shifts is providing educational information about physical therapy or physical therapists: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.

Your week, as this page understands it

Assess, plan, organize, and participate in rehabilitative programs that improve mobility, relieve pain, increase strength, and improve or correct disabling conditions resulting from disease or injury. The job title says “physical therapists”. The real job is the part underneath: administering manual exercises, massage or traction to help relieve pain, increase patient strength or decrease or preventing deformity or crippling. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But physical therapists is not one task. It is 24 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is administering manual exercises, massage or traction to help relieve pain, increase patient strength or decrease or preventing deformity or crippling, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI
4%
changing shape
21%
staying human
75%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 23 out of 100 (18–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 24 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for physical therapists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

Shifting to AI

1 task

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

  • Providing educational information about physical therapy or physical therapists

    This is reading one thing and writing another: educational information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Provide educational information about physical therapy or physical therapists, injury prevention, ergonomics, or ways to promote health.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: General advice on injury prevention, ergonomics and healthy movement is abundantly documented and software writes it very well.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

Changing shape

5 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

  • Recording prognosis, treatment, response and progress in patient's chart or entering information into computer

    The software now makes the first pass at prognosis, treatment, response and progress, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Record prognosis, treatment, response, and progress in patient's chart or enter information into computer.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.

    The rating behind it: Notes can be drafted automatically from session details, though the treating therapist must check and stand behind what is recorded.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Reviewing physician's referral and patient's medical records to help determine diagnosis and physical therapy treatment

    The software now makes the first pass at physician's referral, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Review physician's referral and patient's medical records to help determine diagnosis and physical therapy treatment required.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.

    The rating behind it: Reading referrals and medical records is document work software handles well, with the therapist confirming the clinical picture.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Identifying and documenting goals, anticipated progress and plans for reevaluation

    The software now makes the first pass at goals, anticipated progress and plans, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Identify and document goals, anticipated progress, and plans for reevaluation.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.

    The rating behind it: Goals and reassessment plans follow documented templates and patient data, though the therapist must own the plan of care.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Referring clients to community resources or services

    The software now makes the first pass at clients, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Refer clients to community resources or services.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Signposting to local services is information work, though knowing which local services are actually any good comes from experience.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Conducting or supporting research and applying research findings to practice

    The software now makes the first pass at research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Conduct or support research and apply research findings to practice.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.

    The rating behind it: Reviewing evidence and analysing study data suits software well, though gathering the data still involves patients.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

18 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

  • Planning, preparing

    This work happens in the physical world: carry out individually designed programs of physical treatment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Plan, prepare, or carry out individually designed programs of physical treatment to maintain, improve, or restore physical functioning, alleviate pain, or prevent physical dysfunction in patients.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Designing a programme can be drafted from records, but carrying out treatment is hands-on and legally the therapist's own work.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Performing and documenting an initial exam

    This work happens in the physical world: an initial exam, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Perform and document an initial exam, evaluating data to identify problems and determine a diagnosis prior to intervention.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: An initial examination means physically testing the patient, and the resulting diagnosis is a licensed therapist's responsibility.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Conferring with the patient, medical practitioners or appropriate others to plan, implement or assess the intervention program

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for this work, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Confer with the patient, medical practitioners, or appropriate others to plan, implement, or assess the intervention program.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: These are working conversations between the patient and clinicians where judgement and mutual agreement shape the plan.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Instructing patient and family in treatment procedures to be continued at home

    This work happens in the physical world: patient, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Instruct patient and family in treatment procedures to be continued at home.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Home exercise instructions are easy to produce, but patients learn them best by being shown the movements in person.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 14 tasks

  • Discharging patient from physical therapy when goals or projected outcomes have been attained and providing for appropriate follow-up care or referrals

    staying human

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patient, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Discharge patient from physical therapy when goals or projected outcomes have been attained and provide for appropriate follow-up care or referrals.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (21–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Deciding someone is ready to finish treatment is a clinical judgement the therapist is licensed and accountable for.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Providing information to the patient about the proposed intervention

    staying human

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for information, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Provide information to the patient about the proposed intervention, its material risks and expected benefits, and any reasonable alternatives.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Risk and benefit explanations are well documented, but the law expects the treating clinician to give them to the patient.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Informing patients and referring to appropriate practitioners when diagnosis reveals findings outside physical therapy

    staying human

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Inform patients and refer to appropriate practitioners when diagnosis reveals findings outside physical therapy.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (18–26 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Spotting findings outside physical therapy and choosing the right referral is a clinical judgement the licensed therapist must make.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Participating in community or community agency activities or help to formulate public policy

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: community, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 3 · Core
    Source: “Participate in community or community agency activities or help to formulate public policy.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Community and policy work happens through meetings, local knowledge and relationships with the people involved.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Teaching physical therapy students or those in other health professions

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: physical therapy students, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Teach physical therapy students or those in other health professions.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (10–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Teaching clinical skills relies on supervised hands-on practice and a relationship between teacher and student.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Evaluating effects of treatment at various stages and adjusting treatments to achieve maximum benefit

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: effects of treatment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Evaluate effects of treatment at various stages and adjust treatments to achieve maximum benefit.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (7–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Judging whether treatment is working relies on re-testing the patient by hand, and adjusting care is the therapist's call.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Obtaining patients' informed consent to proposed interventions

    staying human

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients' informed consent, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Obtain patients' informed consent to proposed interventions.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Consent has to be taken by the clinician who will do the treatment, in conversation with the patient.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Directing, supervising, assessing and communicating with supportive personnel

    staying human

    The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for supportive personnel, and that person cannot be a piece of software.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Direct, supervise, assess, and communicate with supportive personnel.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Leading assistants depends on watching them work, knowing their strengths, and relationships built day to day.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Testing and measuring patient's strength

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: patient's strength, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Test and measure patient's strength, motor development and function, sensory perception, functional capacity, or respiratory or circulatory efficiency and record data.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.

    The rating behind it: Measuring strength, movement and function requires physically testing the patient, even though the results are then simply recorded.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

  • Evaluating, fitting or adjusting prosthetic or orthotic devices or recommending modification to orthotist

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: prosthetic, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Evaluate, fit, or adjust prosthetic or orthotic devices or recommend modification to orthotist.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.

    The rating behind it: Fitting and adjusting a brace or prosthesis means working on the device while the patient wears it.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Directing group rehabilitation activities

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: group rehabilitation activities, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 3 · Supplemental
    Source: “Direct group rehabilitation activities.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Running a group session means being in the room, watching how people move, and adapting on the spot.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Administering manual exercises, massage or traction to help relieve pain

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: manual exercises, massage or traction, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 5 · Core
    Source: “Administer manual exercises, massage, or traction to help relieve pain, increase patient strength, or decrease or prevent deformity or crippling.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Manual exercises, massage and traction are done with the therapist's hands on the patient.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Administering treatment involving application of physical agents

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: treatment involving application of physical agents, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Administer treatment involving application of physical agents, using equipment, moist packs, ultraviolet or infrared lamps, or ultrasound machines.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.

    The rating behind it: Applying heat packs, lamps and ultrasound means operating equipment on the patient.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

  • Constructing, maintaining or repairing medical supportive devices

    staying human

    This work happens in the physical world: medical supportive devices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.

    importance 4 · Core
    Source: “Construct, maintain, or repair medical supportive devices.” (O*NET task statement)
    How this row was scored

    Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.

    Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.

    The rating behind it: Building and repairing supportive devices is workshop work done by hand.

    The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay
$102,760a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this

Source: bls-oews

Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

Rounding: Shown as published.

People doing this job
267,330in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: educational information in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: providing educational information about physical therapy or physical therapists and recording prognosis, treatment, response and progress in patient's chart or entering information into computer. What it cannot do is be answerable: manual exercises, massage or traction need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: administering manual exercises, massage or traction to help relieve pain is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 4% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 21% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 75% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 24 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Providing educational information about physical therapy or physical therapists is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to educational information, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding
a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes
ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether manual exercises, massage or traction are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near recording prognosis, treatment, response and progress in patient's chart or entering information into computer. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to physical therapists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was physical therapist assistants: only about 4% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 33.5% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 23/100 here, with only 4% of the task list in the top band, and “plan, prepare, or carry out individually designed programs of physical treatment to…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

  • Physical Therapist Assistants

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already instruct patient and family in treatment procedures to be continued at home, and their equivalent is to communicate with or instruct caregivers or family members on patient therapeutic activities or…. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.

    Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $68,380 against your $102,760, 33.5% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

  • Emergency Medicine Physicians

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already review physician's referral and patient's medical records to help determine diagnosis and physical…, and their equivalent is to discuss patients' treatment plans with physicians and other medical professionals. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.

    Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $335,550 against your $102,760 is 3.27× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 3% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route. And it is a narrow door: about 32,880 of those jobs against 267,330 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 12% as many seats.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

  • Occupational Therapy Assistants

    Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already instruct patient and family in treatment procedures to be continued at home, and their equivalent is to instruct, or assist in instructing, patients and families in home programs, basic living…. Across both published task lists that is about 2% of the durable work in that job.

    Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 2% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $72,300 against your $102,760, 29.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 51,290 of those jobs against 267,330 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 19% as many seats.

    Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

  • The headline number you read somewhere

    The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 4% of its task weight, across 24 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.

  • The headlines about your trade disappearing

    They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like administering manual exercises, massage or traction to help relieve pain arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.

  • Retraining out of a job that is holding up

    On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.

  • The “obvious” next job everyone suggests

    I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Physiotherapists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Physiotherapists. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

Why there is no community here

Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for physical therapists launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for physical therapists yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for physical therapists existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for physical therapists launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Physical Therapists?
Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 24 official task statements scored for Physical Therapists (United States, SOC 29-1123), 4% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 23 out of 100 (range 18–28, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Physical Therapists” can AI already do?
The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Provide educational information about physical therapy or physical therapists, injury prevention, ergonomics, or ways to promote health” (64/100, high); “Review physician's referral and patient's medical records to help determine diagnosis and physical therapy treatment required” (56/100, partial); “Record prognosis, treatment, response, and progress in patient's chart or enter information into computer” (56/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Physical Therapists” stay human?
About 75% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Construct, maintain, or repair medical supportive devices” (0/100, minimal); “Administer treatment involving application of physical agents, using equipment, moist packs, ultraviolet or infrared lamps, or ultrasound machines” (0/100, minimal); “Administer manual exercises, massage, or traction to help relieve pain, increase patient strength, or decrease or prevent deformity or crippling” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Physical Therapists” do about AI?
Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 4% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 75% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Physical Therapists calculated?
Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 24 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

  • One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
  • The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
  • 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
  • Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Task statements
onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights
onet-db (im-rt)
Scores
Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-04.
Pay and employment
bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a jobDownload this releaseLook up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.