Search

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) has been widely implemented in different health-related areas. Several studies investigated important characteristics in EBP by physiotherapists and systematic review is needed. Therefore the aim of this study is to describe the current evidence on EBP knowledge, skills, behaviour, opinions and barriers by physiotherapists. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO, LILACS, and SciELO in September 2014. We retrieved quantitative cross-sectional studies that investigated EBP knowledge, skills, behaviour, opinions, and barriers in physiotherapy. Risk of bias was assessed using a scale to evaluate representativeness of the sample, response rate, the accuracy of the data, evidence of power calculation and the instrument used. The search yielded 12,392 potentially eligible studies. Of these, 12 studies were included in the review (pooled sample = 6411 participants). In 3 studies that analysed knowledge, approximately 21-82% of respondents claimed to have received prior information on EBP. In 2 studies that reported skills and behaviour, nearly half of the sample had used databases to support clinical decision-making. In 6 studies that investigated opinions, the majority of the samples considered EBP necessary or important. The barriers most frequently reported were: lack of time, inability to understand statistics, lack of support from employer, lack of resources, lack of interest and lack of generalisation of results. Although the majority of physiotherapists have a positive opinion about EBP, they consider that they need to improve their knowledge, skills and behaviour towards EBP. They also faced barriers that might hinder the implementation of EBP., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Location of spinal levels by palpation is an essential part of physiotherapy assessment and treatment of spinal musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to (i) investigate the reproducibility and repeatability of three groups of physiotherapists in locating three randomly selected spinal levels by palpation, (ii) explore whether these groups were palpating similar points at each level, and (iii) investigate whether there were differences in palpation across the spinal levels tested. Reproducibility was estimated using a convenience sample of 30 physiotherapists: 13 undergraduate students, 10 clinicians, and seven manual therapists (MTs). Repeatability was investigated using six physiotherapists (two students, two clinicians and two MTs). Each therapist palpated the spinous processes (C5, T6, L5) once for reproducibility, and 10 times for repeatability, on each asymptomatic model. The skin overlying the spinal levels was marked with an invisible pen. Using an ultra-violet light, marks were transcribed onto transparent plastic strips for analysis, and the distances were measured with an electronic caliper. Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) indicated poor reproducibility across therapists at all spinal levels (F=18.43, P=0.001), but good repeatability within therapists (F=2.09, P=0.161). Students produced different mean locations of their palpatory marks from the other two groups in two spinal levels. Clinicians and MTs were more reproducible than students, and located similar levels. Palpation of L5 spinous process presented the most difficulty, for all groups. Further research is needed to compare different methods of palpation and explore whether reproducibility can be improved.

This paper explores the notion of validity from different perspectives and addresses its integration with clinical reasoning. Whilst valuing the evidence-based practice (EBP) perspective in our quest for validation of practice, the authors posit that other perspectives may provide added value through their potential for offering validity in differing circumstances. The reality of the EBP aspiration is discussed and nuances within the evolved term 'research-enhanced practice' are shared. Validity theory applied through different perspectives may, it is argued help to get to grips with the balancing act of validating manual therapy practice.

Trials of manipulative treatment have been compromised by, amongst other things, different definitions of the therapeutic procedures involved. This paper describes a spinal manipulation package agreed by the UK professional bodies that represent chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists. It was devised for use in the UK Back pain Exercise And Manipulation (UK BEAM) trial--a national study of physical treatments in primary care funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Health Service Research and Development Programme. Although systematic reviews have reported some beneficial effects of spinal manipulation for low-back pain, due to the limited methodological quality of primary studies and difficulties in defining manipulation, important questions have remained unanswered. The UK BEAM trial was designed to answer some of those questions. Early in the design of the trial, it was acknowledged that the spinal manipulation treatment regimes provided by practitioners from the three professions shared more similarities than differences. Because the trial design specifically precluded comparison of the effect between the professions, it was necessary to devise a homogenous package representative of, and acceptable to, all three. The resulting package is 'pragmatic', in that it represents what happens to most people undergoing manipulation, and 'explanatory' in that it excludes discipline-specific variations and other ancillary treatments.

The Mulligan concept encompasses a number of mobilising treatment techniques that can be applied to the spine, these include 'NAGs' (natural apophyseal glides), 'SNAGs' (sustained natural apophyseal glides), and 'SMWLMs' (spinal mobilisations with limb movements). These techniques are described and the general principles of examination and treatment are outlined. Clinical examples are used to illustrate the concept's application to the spine, how it has evolved and been integrated into constantly changing physiotherapy practice. New applications are considered which can assist in the correction of dysfunctional movement. The paper reflects on the possible role that this concept has to play within evidence-based practice. A future research direction is proposed in the light of presently available preliminary research results.

The integration of the biopsychosocial model into manual therapy practice is challenging for clinicians, especially for those who have not received formal training in biopsychosocial theory or its application. In this masterclass two contemporary models of health and disability are presented along with a model for organizing clinical knowledge, and a model of reasoning strategies that will assist clinicians in their understanding and application of biopsychosocial theory. All four models emphasise the importance of understanding and managing both the psychosocial and the biomedical aspects of patients' problems. Facilitating change in patients' (and clinicians') perspectives on pain and its biopsychosocial influences requires them to reflect on their underlying assumptions and the basis of those beliefs. Through this reflective process perspectives will be transformed, and for clinicians, in time, different management practices will emerge., (Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.)