Background: The purpose of this study was to explore physiotherapists’ knowledge, attitude, and practice behavior in assessing and managing patients with non-specific, non-traumatic, acute- and subacute neck pain, with a focus on prognostic factors for chronification. Method: A qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews was conducted with 13 physiotherapists working in primary care. A purposive sampling method served to seek the broadest perspectives. The knowledgeattitude and practice framework was used as an analytic lens throughout the process. Textual data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach and constant comparison. Results: Seven main themes emerged from the data; physiotherapists self-estimated knowledge and attitude, role clarity, therapeutic relationship, internal- and external barriers to practice behavior, physiotherapists’ practice behaviors, and self-reflection. These findings are presented in an adjusted knowledge-attitude and practice behavior framework. Conclusion: A complex relationship was found between a physiotherapist’s knowledge about, attitude, and practice behavior concerning the diagnostic process and interventions for non-specific, non-traumatic, acute, and subacute neck pain. Overall, physiotherapists used a biopsychosocial view of patients with non-specific neck pain. Physiotherapists’ practice behaviors was influenced by individual attitudes towards their professional role and therapeutic relationship with the patient, and individual knowledge and skills, personal routines and habits, the feeling of powerlessness to modify patients’ external factors, and patients’ lack of willingness to a biopsychosocial approach influenced physiotherapists’ clinical decisions. In addition, we found self-reflection to have an essential role in developing self-estimated knowledge and change in attitude towards their therapeutic role and therapist-patient relationship.
MULTIFILE
PURPOSE: Malnutrition and sarcopenia require dietetic and physiotherapy interventions. In this study, we aimed to compare interprofessional identity of dietitians and physiotherapists, as well as attitudes towards, facilitators and barriers for, and occurrence of interprofessional treatment of malnutrition and sarcopenia by both professions.METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed from December 4, 2021 until January 31, 2022 through an international online network platform for professionals (LinkedIn). Practitioners working as dietitian or physiotherapist in a healthcare setting were eligible for participation. Outcome measures concerned perceptions regarding shared problem domains, interprofessional treatment, attitudes towards interprofessional treatment, interprofessional identity, facilitators, and barriers. A Chi 2-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Spearman's Rho correlation were calculated. RESULTS: Data from 53 physiotherapists and 48 dietitians were included. Malnutrition is considered a shared problem domain by both professions ( U = 1248.000; p = 0.858). While sarcopenia is treated by both professions ( U = 1260.000; p = 0.927), physiotherapists consider sarcopenia more often a shared problem domain compared to dietitians ( U = 1003.000; p = 0.044). Attitudes towards interprofessional treatment were mostly positive (73%, n = 35 and 87%, n = 46 respectively). Interprofessional identity of dietitians was lower compared to physiotherapists (median = 4.0 versus median = 4.3 respectively; U = 875.000, p = 0.007). This was explained by lower interprofessional belonging (median = 4.0 versus median = 4.8 respectively; U = 771.000, p < 0.001) and lower interprofessional commitment (median = 4.0 versus median = 4.3 respectively; U = 942.500, p = 0.023). Interprofessional identity was correlated with efficient means of communication ( r = 0.30, p = 0.003) and bureaucracy ( r = -0.21, p = 0.034). Other barriers reported included available time, financial compensation, interprofessional knowledge, and obtaining extra care. Most reported facilitators concerned role clarity, clarity of expertise, and willingness of others to collaborate. CONCLUSION: Dietitians and physiotherapists have different interprofessional identities, but both are advocates of interprofessional treatment. Both professions mostly treat malnutrition and sarcopenia individually and have different perceptions regarding sarcopenia as shared problem domain. Facilitators were mainly related to clarity and commitment while barriers were mainly related to resources.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: High-velocity low-amplitude thrust spinal manipulation (SM) is a recommended and commonly used manual therapy intervention in physiotherapy. Beliefs surrounding the safety and effectiveness of SM have challenged its use, and even advocated for its abandonment. Our study aimed to investigate the knowledge and beliefs surrounding SM by Italian physiotherapists compared with similar practitioners in other countries.METHODS: An online survey with 41 questions was adapted from previous surveys and was distributed via a mailing list of the Italian Physiotherapists Association (March 22-26, 2020). The questionnaire was divided into 4 sections to capture information on participant demographics, utilization, potential barriers, and knowledge about SM. Questions were differentiated between spinal regions. Attitudes towards different spinal regions, attributes associated with beliefs, and the influence of previous educational background were each evaluated.RESULTS: Of the 7398 registered physiotherapists, 575 (7.8%) completed the survey and were included for analysis. The majority of respondents perceived SM as safe and effective when applied to the thoracic (74.1%) and lumbar (72.2%) spines; whereas, a smaller proportion viewed SM to the upper cervical spine (56.8%) as safe and effective. Respondents reported they were less likely to provide and feel comfortable with upper cervical SM (respectively, 27.5% and 48.5%) compared to the thoracic (respectively, 52.2% and 74.8%) and lumbar spines (respectively, 46.3% and 74.3%). Most physiotherapists (70.4%) agreed they would perform additional screening prior to upper cervical SM compared to other spinal regions. Respondents who were aware of clinical prediction rules were more likely to report being comfortable with SM (OR 2.38-3.69) and to perceive it as safe (OR 1.75-3.12). Finally, physiotherapists without musculoskeletal specialization, especially those with a traditional manual therapy background, were more likely to perform additional screening prior to SM, use SM less frequently, report being less comfortable performing SM, and report upper cervical SM as less safe (p < 0.001).DISCUSSION: The beliefs and attitudes of physiotherapists surrounding the use of SM are significantly different when comparing the upper cervical spine to other spinal regions. An educational background in traditional manual therapy significantly influences beliefs and attitudes. We propose an updated framework on evidence-based SM.
DOCUMENT
