Use of outcome measures improved after a tailored implementation in primary care physiotherapy: a prospective, controlled study
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
Rationale, aims and objectivesIt 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. MethodsA 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. ResultsAfter 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. ConclusionsThe 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
WILEY-BLACKWELL , 2016. Vol. 22, no 5, 668-676 p.
clinical guidelines; evaluation; evidence-based practice; physical therapy
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-132680DOI: 10.1111/jep.12513ISI: 000383581000005PubMedID: 26853076OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-132680DiVA: diva2:1048265
Funding Agencies|Research and Development, Gothenburg and Sodra Bohuslan2016-11-212016-11-182016-11-21