Augustine E, Corn M, Danoff J
Physical Therapy Section, Rehabilitation Medicine Department, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Cancer. 1998 Dec 15;83(12 Suppl American):2869-73. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19981215)83:12b+<2869::aid-cncr41>3.0.co;2-u.
The objective of this study was to determine to what extent accredited physical therapy programs in the United States were presenting the principles of lymphedema management and whether regional differences existed.
States were grouped into four geographic regions: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. From mid-June to mid-July, 1997, 63 of 148 (42.6%) accredited physical therapy (PT) programs in the United States completed and returned the questionnaires. Participants received a cover letter, consent form, and lymphedema survey by e-mail, facsimile, or regular post. The lymphedema survey covered a wide variety of issues relating to five areas: 1) general and 2) specific anatomy and physiology of the lymphatic system, 3) pathogenesis of lymphedema, 4) traditional (compression pumps/garments), and 5) innovative (European/Australian) treatment techniques for lymphedema. "Yes" responses indicated that specific information was included in the curriculum. Frequency of yes responses for each of the five areas were counted and converted into percentages. Regional responses were compared with the total combined responses with a modified binomial technique.
PT programs in the United States were providing 89% of our designated content in the general anatomy and physiology of the lymphatic system, 73% in the pathogenesis of lymphedema, 65% in traditional treatment techniques, 48% in innovative treatment techniques, and 42% in the specific anatomy and physiology of the lymphatic system. No individual region differed significantly (P > 0.05) from the combined results.
The participating PT programs appeared to be providing instruction in general anatomy and physiology of the lymphatic system, pathogenesis of lymphedema, and traditional treatment techniques. However, far less instruction on the specific anatomy and physiology of the lymphatic system and innovative treatment techniques is offered. We believe that PT students would benefit with more curricular content in these latter two categories in order to acquire the knowledge and skills to combat the devastating effects of lymphedema.
本研究的目的是确定美国经认可的物理治疗项目在何种程度上讲授淋巴水肿管理原则,以及是否存在地区差异。
将美国各州分为四个地理区域:东北部、南部、中西部和西部。1997年6月中旬至7月中旬,美国148个经认可的物理治疗(PT)项目中的63个(42.6%)完成并返回了问卷。参与者通过电子邮件、传真或普通邮件收到一封附信、同意书和淋巴水肿调查问卷。淋巴水肿调查问卷涵盖了与五个领域相关的广泛问题:1)一般情况,2)淋巴系统的特定解剖学和生理学,3)淋巴水肿的发病机制,4)传统(加压泵/服装),以及5)创新(欧洲/澳大利亚)的淋巴水肿治疗技术。“是”的回答表明课程中包含特定信息。统计五个领域中每个领域“是”回答的频率,并将其转换为百分比。使用改良二项式技术将各地区的回答与总的综合回答进行比较。
美国的物理治疗项目在淋巴系统的一般解剖学和生理学方面提供了我们指定内容的89%,在淋巴水肿的发病机制方面提供了73%,在传统治疗技术方面提供了65%,在创新治疗技术方面提供了48%,在淋巴系统的特定解剖学和生理学方面提供了42%。没有哪个单独的地区与综合结果有显著差异(P>0.05)。
参与的物理治疗项目似乎在讲授淋巴系统的一般解剖学和生理学、淋巴水肿的发病机制以及传统治疗技术。然而,关于淋巴系统的特定解剖学和生理学以及创新治疗技术的教学要少得多。我们认为,物理治疗专业的学生如果能在这后两个类别中有更多的课程内容,将受益良多,以便获得应对淋巴水肿破坏性影响的知识和技能。