Shaffer Stephen M, Stuhr Sarah H, Sizer Phillip S, Courtney Carol A, Brismée Jean-Michel
Program in Physical Therapy, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, School of Health Professions, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA.
School of Physical Therapy, College of Health Professions, Pacific University, Hillsboro, OR, USA.
J Man Manip Ther. 2018 May;26(2):102-108. doi: 10.1080/10669817.2017.1422614. Epub 2018 Jan 5.
The purpose of this investigation was to establish an international baseline of the quantity of physical therapist education on temporomandibular disorders (TMD) during post-professional Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapy (OMPT) education.
An electronically distributed survey was sent to programs and data analyzed for trends, including a comparison of TMD and cervical spine disorders education. Current data were compared to pre-existing data from the United States.
For the current data-set, the Mann-Whitney U test demonstrated statistical significance when comparing TMD and cervical spine disorders education for both the hours of didactic training provided ( < 0.0001) and the number of patients seen during clinical training ( < 0.006). When comparing the United States and international data, statistically significant greater exposure was reported for both didactic ( < 0.0001) and clinical education ( < 0.006) of TMD topics in the United States but not for didactic ( = 0.23) or clinical education ( = 0.15) of cervical spine topics.
These data again indicate a lack of uniformity between post-professional training programs in OMPT with respect to TMD education. There is, however, consistency in that most programs provided more training on cervical spine disorders than TMD. Based on these findings, further investigations are appropriate to determine if TMD education is adequate during post-professional OMPT education.
本调查的目的是建立专业后骨科手法物理治疗(OMPT)教育期间颞下颌关节紊乱病(TMD)物理治疗师教育量的国际基线。
向各项目发送电子分布式调查问卷,并对数据进行趋势分析,包括比较TMD和颈椎疾病的教育情况。将当前数据与美国先前存在的数据进行比较。
对于当前数据集,在比较TMD和颈椎疾病教育时,Mann-Whitney U检验在提供的理论培训时长(<0.0001)和临床培训期间诊治的患者数量(<0.006)方面均显示出统计学意义。在比较美国和国际数据时,美国在TMD主题的理论(<0.0001)和临床教育(<0.006)方面报告的暴露量在统计学上显著更高,但在颈椎主题的理论(=0.23)或临床教育(=0.15)方面并非如此。
这些数据再次表明,OMPT专业后培训项目在TMD教育方面缺乏一致性。然而,大多数项目在颈椎疾病方面提供的培训比TMD更多,这一点是一致的。基于这些发现,进一步的调查对于确定专业后OMPT教育期间TMD教育是否充分是合适的。