Raymond A H M Swinkels1, Guus M Meerhoff2, Jan W H Custers3, Roland P S van Peppen3, Anna J H M Beurskens4, Harriet Wittink5. 1. Department of Physical Therapy; Research Centre for Autonomy and Participation for Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen. 2. Department of Science, Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy, Amersfoort; Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen. 3. Department of Physical Therapy. 4. Department of Physical Therapy; Research Centre for Autonomy and Participation for Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen; Department of Family Practice, CAPHRI School of Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Physical Therapy; Research Centre for Innovations in Health Care, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the development of an educational programme for physiotherapists in the Netherlands, two toolkits of measurement instruments, and the evaluation of an implementation strategy. METHOD: The study used a controlled pre- and post-measurement design. A tailored educational programme for the use of outcome measures was developed that consisted of four training sessions and two toolkits of measurement instruments. Of 366 invited physiotherapists, 265 followed the educational programme (response rate 72.4%), and 235 randomly chosen control physiotherapists did not (28% response rate). The outcomes measured were participants' general attitude toward measurement instruments, their ability to choose measurement instruments, their use of measurement instruments, the applicability of the educational programme, and the changes in physiotherapy practice achieved as a result of the programme. RESULTS: Consistent (not occasional) use of measurement instruments increased from 26% to 41% in the intervention group; in the control group, use remained almost the same (45% vs 48%). Difficulty in choosing an appropriate measurement instrument decreased from 3.5 to 2.7 on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Finally, 91% of respondents found the educational programme useful, and 82% reported that it changed their physiotherapy practice. CONCLUSIONS: The educational programme and toolkits were useful and had a positive effect on physiotherapists' ability to choose among many possible outcome measures.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To describe the development of an educational programme for physiotherapists in the Netherlands, two toolkits of measurement instruments, and the evaluation of an implementation strategy. METHOD: The study used a controlled pre- and post-measurement design. A tailored educational programme for the use of outcome measures was developed that consisted of four training sessions and two toolkits of measurement instruments. Of 366 invited physiotherapists, 265 followed the educational programme (response rate 72.4%), and 235 randomly chosen control physiotherapists did not (28% response rate). The outcomes measured were participants' general attitude toward measurement instruments, their ability to choose measurement instruments, their use of measurement instruments, the applicability of the educational programme, and the changes in physiotherapy practice achieved as a result of the programme. RESULTS: Consistent (not occasional) use of measurement instruments increased from 26% to 41% in the intervention group; in the control group, use remained almost the same (45% vs 48%). Difficulty in choosing an appropriate measurement instrument decreased from 3.5 to 2.7 on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Finally, 91% of respondents found the educational programme useful, and 82% reported that it changed their physiotherapy practice. CONCLUSIONS: The educational programme and toolkits were useful and had a positive effect on physiotherapists' ability to choose among many possible outcome measures.
Authors: J M Grimshaw; L Shirran; R Thomas; G Mowatt; C Fraser; L Bero; R Grilli; E Harvey; A Oxman; M A O'Brien Journal: Med Care Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Roland P S Van Peppen; Francois J F Maissan; Frank R Van Genderen; Rob Van Dolder; Nico L U Van Meeteren Journal: Physiother Res Int Date: 2008-12
Authors: Dianne J Russell; Lisa M Rivard; Stephen D Walter; Peter L Rosenbaum; Lori Roxborough; Dianne Cameron; Johanna Darrah; Doreen J Bartlett; Steven E Hanna; Lisa M Avery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Raymond A H M Swinkels; Roland P S van Peppen; Harriet Wittink; Jan W H Custers; Anna J H M Beurskens Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2011-05-22 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Andrew J Kittelson; Thomas J Hoogeboom; Margaret Schenkman; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley; Nico L U van Meeteren Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2020-01-23
Authors: Carol L Richards; Francine Malouin; Sylvie Nadeau; Joyce Fung; Line D'Amours; Claire Perez; Anne Durand Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2019 Impact factor: 1.037