Bahns Carolin, Scheffler Bettina, Bremer Alexander, Kopkow Christian
Department of Therapy Science I, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Senftenberg, Germany.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2025 Aug;31(5). doi: 10.1111/jep.14218. Epub 2024 Oct 27.
Clinical practice guidelines summarise the existing evidence on specific health conditions and aim to optimise quality of care by providing evidence-based recommendations. Studies have reported a gap between research findings and clinical practice in physiotherapy. Guideline adherence is often used as a measure of agreement between therapeutic care and guideline recommendations. However, there is currently no standardised methodological approach for measuring guideline adherence.
The objective of this scoping review was to summarise the methods and results of studies that assessed guideline adherence in physiotherapy.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro and CENTRAL databases were searched for relevant literature up to December 2022. Published reports of observational studies and controlled clinical trials that provided information on the assessment of guideline adherence in physiotherapists were included. The selection process was performed independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the identified reports was not assessed. Results were summarised narratively.
From a total of 2560 potentially relevant records, 53 reports were included in the analysis. Physiotherapists' adherence to guidelines was primarily assessed in the context of musculoskeletal conditions, such as low back pain (n = 25, 47.2%) and osteoarthritis (n = 8, 15.1%). A wide range of measurement approaches were used with the majority of reports using web-based surveys (n = 21, 39.6%), followed by chart reviews (n = 17, 32.1%). Most reports (n = 21, 39.6%) provided information on the level of adherence in terms of frequency dichotomising (self-reported) clinical practice as adherent or non-adherent. Adherence rates varied widely between included reports.
Although the large number of included reports indicates a high level of interest in the topic of guideline adherence, there is considerable heterogeneity between studies regarding the methodological approaches used to assess guideline adherence in physiotherapists. This reduces the comparability of the study results.
INPLASY (registration no. 202250081). Registered on 12th May 2022.
临床实践指南总结了关于特定健康状况的现有证据,旨在通过提供基于证据的建议来优化医疗质量。研究报告称,物理治疗领域的研究结果与临床实践之间存在差距。指南依从性常被用作衡量治疗护理与指南建议之间一致性的指标。然而,目前尚无用于衡量指南依从性的标准化方法。
本范围综述的目的是总结评估物理治疗中指南依从性的研究方法和结果。
检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、PEDro和CENTRAL数据库,查找截至2022年12月的相关文献。纳入提供了有关物理治疗师指南依从性评估信息的观察性研究和对照临床试验的已发表报告。筛选过程由两名评审员独立进行。未评估所识别报告的方法学质量。结果采用叙述性总结。
在总共2560条潜在相关记录中,53份报告纳入分析。物理治疗师对指南的依从性主要在肌肉骨骼疾病背景下进行评估,如腰痛(n = 25,47.2%)和骨关节炎(n = 8,15.1%)。使用了广泛的测量方法,大多数报告采用基于网络的调查(n = 21,39.6%),其次是病历审查(n = 17,32.1%)。大多数报告(n = 21,39.6%)提供了关于依从性水平的信息,将(自我报告的)临床实践按频率分为依从或不依从。纳入报告之间的依从率差异很大。
尽管纳入的大量报告表明对指南依从性主题有很高的关注度,但在用于评估物理治疗师指南依从性的方法学方法方面,研究之间存在相当大的异质性。这降低了研究结果的可比性。
INPLASY(注册号202250081)。于2022年5月12日注册。