Weber Franziska, Kloek Corelien, Bonk Max, Grüneberg Christian, Veenhof Cindy
Department of Nursing, Midwifery and Therapeutic Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Hochschule Bochum (Bochum University of Applied Sciences), 44801 Bochum, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.
Department of Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy Science & Sport, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Phys Ther. 2025 Aug 5;105(8). doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzaf083.
Conservative, non-pharmacological interventions are the recommended first-line treatment for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), such as those from the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI), guide evidence-based care by physical therapists. However, no studies in Germany have examined physical therapists' treatment choices across patient cases and compared them with the latest evidence.
The objective of this study was to investigate to what extent physical therapists meet the latest evidence when treating different types of people with hip or knee OA.
A cross-sectional vignette-based online survey was conducted among physical therapists working in outpatient practices.
Eligible participants had adequate German language skills, internet access, and recent experience treating patients with hip or knee OA.
The survey included 4 case vignettes of hip or knee OA, with and without comorbidities, and a list of treatment modalities from the OARSI guideline. Correct selections matched high-evidence recommendations. Descriptive statistics analyzed demographics and treatment choices; linear regression assessed the influence of professional degree and work experience on meeting the latest evidence.
Of 612 eligible therapists, 335 (54.7%) completed the survey (mean age 35.9+/-11.9 years; 60% female). Only 22% selected all recommended modalities across vignettes. Structured exercise (96%) and arthritis education (95%) were the most frequently chosen. However, many therapists also selected interventions with limited or conflicting evidence, such as massage and taping. Both professional degree and work experience significantly influenced the extent to which the latest evidence was met. Additionally, 49% were aware of at least 1 OA guideline.
While many physical therapists aligned with evidence-based practices, inappropriate modality selection remained common. De-implementation is needed where evidence suggests a lack of benefit or potential safety concerns. Translating and implementing the OARSI guideline into various languages, specifically for physical therapists, is recommended to close knowledge gaps.
The study's findings underscore the importance of understanding the treatment modalities used by physical therapists in managing hip or knee OA worldwide. This insight is crucial for addressing the evidence-to-practice gap and ensuring the effective implementation of high-quality physical therapy, a need that is equally relevant in other countries. Additionally, this knowledge is vital for developing targeted strategies, such as the creation and integration of (de-)implementation protocols into the education and ongoing professional development of physical therapists globally.
保守的非药物干预是髋膝骨关节炎(OA)推荐的一线治疗方法。临床实践指南(CPG),如国际骨关节炎研究学会(OARSI)发布的指南,指导物理治疗师进行循证治疗。然而,德国尚无研究调查物理治疗师针对不同患者病例的治疗选择,并将其与最新证据进行比较。
本研究的目的是调查物理治疗师在治疗不同类型的髋或膝OA患者时,在多大程度上符合最新证据。
对在门诊工作的物理治疗师开展了一项基于横断面病例 vignette 的在线调查。
符合条件的参与者具备足够的德语能力、网络接入条件,且近期有治疗髋或膝OA患者的经验。
该调查包括4个髋或膝OA的病例 vignette,有或无合并症,以及一份来自OARSI指南的治疗方式清单。正确的选择符合高证据等级的推荐。描述性统计分析人口统计学和治疗选择;线性回归评估专业学位和工作经验对符合最新证据的影响。
在612名符合条件的治疗师中,335名(54.7%)完成了调查(平均年龄35.9±11.9岁;60%为女性)。只有22%的人在所有病例 vignette 中都选择了所有推荐的治疗方式。结构化运动(96%)和关节炎教育(95%)是最常被选择的。然而,许多治疗师也选择了证据有限或相互矛盾的干预措施,如按摩和贴扎。专业学位和工作经验都显著影响了符合最新证据的程度。此外,49%的人知晓至少1项OA指南。
虽然许多物理治疗师遵循循证实践,但不恰当的治疗方式选择仍然很常见。在证据表明缺乏益处或存在潜在安全问题的情况下,需要减少这些治疗方式的使用。建议将OARSI指南翻译成多种语言并实施,特别是针对物理治疗师,以弥补知识差距。
该研究结果强调了了解全球范围内物理治疗师在管理髋或膝OA时所使用的治疗方式的重要性。这一见解对于弥合证据与实践之间的差距以及确保高质量物理治疗的有效实施至关重要,这一需求在其他国家同样存在。此外,这些知识对于制定针对性策略至关重要,例如将(减少)实施方案创建并整合到全球物理治疗师的教育和持续专业发展中。