Department of Orthopaedics, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America; Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America.
AGENCE, EBP, Paris, France.
Braz J Phys Ther. 2022 Jul-Aug;26(4):100428. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2022.100428. Epub 2022 Jul 8.
Physical therapists obtain information from a variety of sources. The sources may influence their believability and use in clinical practice.
In this hypothesis-based study, we queried physical therapists (PTs) on the believability of evidence across six musculoskeletal treatment domains and analyzed variables that predicted the strength of beliefs.
This international survey included six different language portals and used a snowball dispensation strategy. PTs who were credentialed, licensed, or who practiced in the field, were queried on the believability of six treatment domains (i.e., exercise, manual therapy, psychologically-informed practice, sports/occupational performance, thermal/electrical agents, and pain science/patient education) and potential predictors of believability (i.e., social media use, years of practice, time and access to literature, specialization, confidence in reviewing literature and attributions of the researcher).
In total, 1098 PTs from 36 countries completed the survey. PTs had strong beliefs in what they read or hear about exercise, sports/occupational performance, pain science/patient education, and psychologically-informed interventions. There was only moderate believability regarding manual therapy treatment and weak believability associated with thermal/electrical agents. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that the most robust predictor to outcome relationships included time and access to literature and believability of pain science/patient education, years of clinical practice and believability of psychologically informed practice, and believability of thermal/electrical agents.
An important takeaway from this study is that believability was influenced by several factors (primarily by years of practice, attributions of the researcher, and time and access to literature) and appeared to vary across treatment domains.
物理治疗师从各种来源获取信息。这些来源可能会影响他们在临床实践中的可信度和使用。
在这项基于假设的研究中，我们向物理治疗师（PTs）询问了六个肌肉骨骼治疗领域的证据可信度，并分析了预测信念强度的变量。
这项国际调查包括六个不同的语言门户，并使用了滚雪球分配策略。对具有认证、许可或在该领域执业的 PTs 进行了六个治疗领域（即运动、手法治疗、心理知情实践、运动/职业表现、热/电代理和疼痛科学/患者教育）和可信度的潜在预测因素（即社交媒体使用、实践年限、获取文献的时间和机会、专业化、文献审查信心和研究人员归因）的可信度进行了查询。
共有来自 36 个国家的 1098 名 PT 完成了调查。PTs 对他们阅读或听到的关于运动、运动/职业表现、疼痛科学/患者教育和心理知情干预的内容非常信任。对手法治疗的可信度只有中等，而对热/电代理的可信度则较低。多元线性回归分析显示，与结果关系最密切的预测因素包括获取文献的时间和机会以及对疼痛科学/患者教育的可信度、临床实践年限和对心理知情实践的可信度、以及对热/电代理的可信度。
这项研究的一个重要收获是，可信度受到几个因素的影响（主要是实践年限、研究人员的归因以及获取文献的时间和机会），并且似乎因治疗领域而异。
