umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Use of outcome measures improved after a tailored implementation in primary care physiotherapy: a prospective, controlled study
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy. Närhälsan Stenungsund Rehabilitation, Stenungsund, Sweden.
2016 (English)In: Journal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, ISSN 1356-1294, E-ISSN 1365-2753, Vol. 22, no 5, 668-676 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Rationale, aims and objectives It is important that physiotherapists routinely use outcome measures to evaluate treatment results. There is limited knowledge about effective ways to increase use of outcome measures. The objectives were to investigate the effect of a tailored implementation of guidelines for evaluation of physiotherapy treatment and to explore differences in outcome subgrouped by demographic variables. Methods A prospective, controlled study was conducted in primary care physiotherapy in western Sweden. 448 publicly employed physiotherapists participated. The intervention comprised a tailored, multi-component implementation of guidelines for treatment and evaluation of musculoskeletal disorders. The core component was a 3-hour implementation seminar. The control group received no intervention. Self-reported attitudes towards, access to and use of outcome measures were assessed with a web-based questionnaire before and after the implementation. Results After the implementation, a significantly higher proportion of physiotherapists in the intervention group than in the control group reported using outcome measures frequently, 54.8% vs. 35.6%, a 19.2% difference. The proportion of physiotherapists who reported that they considered outcome measures important to use and that they had easy access to outcome measures at their workplace, were similar in both groups at follow-up, 92.8% vs. 93.1%, and 95.2% vs. 90.8%, respectively. At follow-up, no differences related to demographic variables were found in the subgroup analyses. Conclusions The findings suggest that a tailored, multi-component implementation can be effective in increasing use of outcome measures. Although most physiotherapists considered outcome measures important and reported having easy access to them at their workplace, only a little more than half reported using outcome measures after the intervention.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 22, no 5, 668-676 p.
Keyword [en]
clinical guidelines, evaluation, evidence-based practice, physical therapy
National Category
Physiotherapy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-127725DOI: 10.1111/jep.12513ISI: 000383581000005PubMedID: 26853076OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-127725DiVA: diva2:1056294
Available from: 2016-12-14 Created: 2016-11-18 Last updated: 2016-12-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Käll, Ingela
By organisation
Physiotherapy
In the same journal
Journal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice
Physiotherapy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 7 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf