Ingela Käll1,2, Maria Eh Larsson3,4, Susanne Bernhardsson5,6. 1. Närhälsan Stenungsund Rehabilitation, Stenungsund, Sweden. ingela.kall@vgregion.se. 2. Umeå University, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation & Physiotherapy, UMEÅ, Sweden. ingela.kall@vgregion.se. 3. Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Department of Health and Rehabilitation, Unit of Physiotherapy, The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Research and Development, Primary Health Care, Närhälsan Primary Care Research and Development Centre, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 6. Närhälsan Rehabilitation Hönö/Öckerö, Region Västra Götaland, Hönö, Sweden.
Abstract
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.
RCT Entities:
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.