Survey of physicians' and physiotherapists' ankle muscle strength assessment practices for safe return to sports after lateral ankle sprain: A short report.
{"title":"Survey of physicians' and physiotherapists' ankle muscle strength assessment practices for safe return to sports after lateral ankle sprain: A short report.","authors":"Aude Aguilaniu, François Delvaux, Cédric Schwartz, Géraldine Martens, Bénédicte Forthomme, Jean-François Kaux, Jean-Louis Croisier","doi":"10.1002/pri.2008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Ankle muscle strength is an important criterion to consider and assess for return to play (RTP) after lateral ankle sprain (LAS). This study therefore focuses on the reported ankle muscle strength consideration for RTP by physicians and physiotherapists, both clinicians involved in RTP decisions, and how they assess it in daily practice. The primary aim is to compare reported clinical practice on ankle muscle strength evaluation between physicians and physiotherapists. Our secondary aims are: to assess the prevalence of use of qualitative versus quantitative assessment and; to determine if there are any differences in how clinicians with or without a Sports Medicine or Physiotherapy Education approach this assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey on RTP criteria after LAS was completed by 109 physicians in a previous study. A number of 103 physiotherapists completed the same survey. A comparison between clinicians' answers was realized and additional questions on ankle muscle strength were analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Physiotherapists consider ankle strength for RTP more than physicians (p < 0.001). A large majority of physicians (93%) and physiotherapists (92%) reported assessing ankle strength manually and less than 10% use a dynamometer. Physicians and physiotherapists with Sports Medicine or Physiotherapy Education selected more quantitative assessment than those without (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Despite being recognized as an important criterion, ankle muscle strength is not always part of the RTP criteria after LAS in daily practice. The dynamometers are scarcely used by physicians and physiotherapists, whereas it could accurately quantify ankle strength deficits. Sports Medicine or Physiotherapy Education increases the use of quantitative ankle strength assessments by clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":47243,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Research International","volume":" ","pages":"e2008"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.2008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and purpose: Ankle muscle strength is an important criterion to consider and assess for return to play (RTP) after lateral ankle sprain (LAS). This study therefore focuses on the reported ankle muscle strength consideration for RTP by physicians and physiotherapists, both clinicians involved in RTP decisions, and how they assess it in daily practice. The primary aim is to compare reported clinical practice on ankle muscle strength evaluation between physicians and physiotherapists. Our secondary aims are: to assess the prevalence of use of qualitative versus quantitative assessment and; to determine if there are any differences in how clinicians with or without a Sports Medicine or Physiotherapy Education approach this assessment.
Methods: A survey on RTP criteria after LAS was completed by 109 physicians in a previous study. A number of 103 physiotherapists completed the same survey. A comparison between clinicians' answers was realized and additional questions on ankle muscle strength were analysed.
Results: Physiotherapists consider ankle strength for RTP more than physicians (p < 0.001). A large majority of physicians (93%) and physiotherapists (92%) reported assessing ankle strength manually and less than 10% use a dynamometer. Physicians and physiotherapists with Sports Medicine or Physiotherapy Education selected more quantitative assessment than those without (p < 0.001).
Discussion: Despite being recognized as an important criterion, ankle muscle strength is not always part of the RTP criteria after LAS in daily practice. The dynamometers are scarcely used by physicians and physiotherapists, whereas it could accurately quantify ankle strength deficits. Sports Medicine or Physiotherapy Education increases the use of quantitative ankle strength assessments by clinicians.
期刊介绍：
Physiotherapy Research International is an international peer reviewed journal dedicated to the exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to specialist areas of physiotherapy theory, practice, and research. Our aim is to promote a high level of scholarship and build on the current evidence base to inform the advancement of the physiotherapy profession. We publish original research on a wide range of topics e.g. Primary research testing new physiotherapy treatments; methodological research; measurement and outcome research and qualitative research of interest to researchers, clinicians and educators. Further, we aim to publish high quality papers that represent the range of cultures and settings where physiotherapy services are delivered. We attract a wide readership from physiotherapists and others working in diverse clinical and academic settings. We aim to promote an international debate amongst the profession about current best evidence based practice. Papers are directed primarily towards the physiotherapy profession, but can be relevant to a wide range of professional groups. The growth of interdisciplinary research is also key to our aims and scope, and we encourage relevant submissions from other professional groups. The journal actively encourages submissions which utilise a breadth of different methodologies and research designs to facilitate addressing key questions related to the physiotherapy practice. PRI seeks to encourage good quality topical debates on a range of relevant issues and promote critical reflection on decision making and implementation of physiotherapy interventions.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
