Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists' knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 1.6 Q2 REHABILITATION
Antoine Fourré, Jef Michielsen, Laurence Ris, Ben Darlow, Rob Vanderstraeten, Hilde Bastiaens, Christophe Demoulin, Nathalie Roussel
{"title":"Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists' knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Antoine Fourré, Jef Michielsen, Laurence Ris, Ben Darlow, Rob Vanderstraeten, Hilde Bastiaens, Christophe Demoulin, Nathalie Roussel","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2025.2476670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Physiotherapists were allocated (1/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher's t-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (<i>p</i> < .001; η<sup>2</sup><sub>p</sub> = .243) and Back-PAQ (<i>p</i> < .001; η<sup>2</sup><sub>p</sub> = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (<i>p</i> < .001) post-intervention.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient's reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psycho-social factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists' knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.</p>","PeriodicalId":47319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2025.2476670","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care.

Methods: Physiotherapists were allocated (1/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher's t-tests.

Results: Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; η2p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; η2p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention.

Conclusion: An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient's reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psycho-social factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists' knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of original research, case reports, and reviews of the literature that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of manual therapy, clinical research, therapeutic practice, and academic training. In addition, each issue features an editorial written by the editor or a guest editor, media reviews, thesis reviews, and abstracts of current literature. Areas of interest include: •Thrust and non-thrust manipulation •Neurodynamic assessment and treatment •Diagnostic accuracy and classification •Manual therapy-related interventions •Clinical decision-making processes •Understanding clinimetrics for the clinician
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信