Scientific approach and attitudes among clinically working physiotherapists in Sweden -a cross sectional survey.

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION
Frida Eek, Pernilla Åsenlöf, Kjerstin Stigmar
{"title":"Scientific approach and attitudes among clinically working physiotherapists in Sweden -a cross sectional survey.","authors":"Frida Eek, Pernilla Åsenlöf, Kjerstin Stigmar","doi":"10.1186/s40945-023-00173-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence based medicine (EBM) should be an endeavor within all healthcare professions. Knowledge and understanding of science are important prerequisites of EBM.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim was to examine and compare perspectives on science and perceived inhibiting and facilitating factors for the assimilation and implementation of scientific information among clinically working specialist- and non-specialist physiotherapists in Sweden.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey study was conducted via a web-based questionnaire. Clinically active physiotherapists in Sweden were invited to participate. Attitudes and perspectives were compared between physiotherapists with completed or on-going specialist training, and non-specialists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 1165 physiotherapists responded to the survey (75.5%, (n = 870) women, mean age 44.8 (SD 12.1), whereof 25.5% (n = 319) with completed or ongoing specialist training). The majority of participants had a high interest in science but did not consider a general scientific approach to be applied within physiotherapy. The main perceived inhibiting factor for a clinical practice more based on scientific evidence was lack of time. Specialists had in general higher interest and ability to interpret and evaluate science, and prioritized scientific evidence to a higher extent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among respondents, a scientific approach was considered valuable within physiotherapy but not considered fully applied in practice. The higher interest and perceived ability to interpret science among specialists indicates that further education and specialist training can increase both interest and understanding of science among physiotherapists.</p>","PeriodicalId":72290,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physiotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10561402/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-023-00173-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Evidence based medicine (EBM) should be an endeavor within all healthcare professions. Knowledge and understanding of science are important prerequisites of EBM.

Objective: The aim was to examine and compare perspectives on science and perceived inhibiting and facilitating factors for the assimilation and implementation of scientific information among clinically working specialist- and non-specialist physiotherapists in Sweden.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted via a web-based questionnaire. Clinically active physiotherapists in Sweden were invited to participate. Attitudes and perspectives were compared between physiotherapists with completed or on-going specialist training, and non-specialists.

Results: In total, 1165 physiotherapists responded to the survey (75.5%, (n = 870) women, mean age 44.8 (SD 12.1), whereof 25.5% (n = 319) with completed or ongoing specialist training). The majority of participants had a high interest in science but did not consider a general scientific approach to be applied within physiotherapy. The main perceived inhibiting factor for a clinical practice more based on scientific evidence was lack of time. Specialists had in general higher interest and ability to interpret and evaluate science, and prioritized scientific evidence to a higher extent.

Conclusion: Among respondents, a scientific approach was considered valuable within physiotherapy but not considered fully applied in practice. The higher interest and perceived ability to interpret science among specialists indicates that further education and specialist training can increase both interest and understanding of science among physiotherapists.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

瑞典临床物理治疗师的科学方法和态度——一项横断面调查。
背景:循证医学(EBM)应该是所有医疗专业的一项努力。对科学的认识和理解是EBM的重要前提。目的:研究和比较瑞典临床专业和非专业理疗师对科学的看法以及对科学信息同化和实施的抑制和促进因素。方法:采用网络问卷进行横断面调查研究。瑞典临床活跃的物理治疗师应邀参加。对已完成或正在进行专业培训的理疗师和非专业理疗师的态度和观点进行了比较。结果:总共有1165名理疗师对调查做出了回应(75.5% = 870)女性,平均年龄44.8(SD 12.1),其中25.5%(n = 319)完成或正在进行的专业培训)。大多数参与者对科学有很高的兴趣,但没有考虑在理疗中应用一般的科学方法。对于更多基于科学证据的临床实践来说,主要的抑制因素是缺乏时间。一般来说,专家对解释和评估科学有更高的兴趣和能力,并在更高程度上优先考虑科学证据。结论:在受访者中,科学的方法被认为在物理治疗中有价值,但在实践中没有得到充分应用。专家对科学的理解兴趣和感知能力越高,表明继续教育和专家培训可以提高物理治疗师对科学的兴趣和理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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