Richard Ellis1, Jake Helsby2, Jade Naus2, Sandra Bassett2, César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas3, Samuel Fernández Carnero4, Julie Hides5, Cliona O'Sullivan6, Deydre Teyhen7, Maria Stokes8, Jackie L Whittaker9. 1. Active Living and Rehabilitation: Aotearoa New Zealand, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address: rellis@aut.ac.nz. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (URJC), Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain; Cátedra Institucional en Docencia, Clínica e Investigación en Fisioterapia: Terapia Manual, Punción Seca y Ejercicio Terapéutico, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. 4. Department of Physiotherapy and Nursing, Alcalá University, Alcalá de Henares, Spain. 5. School of Allied Health Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia. 6. School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. 7. Commander, U.S. Army Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 503 Robert Grant Road, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA. 8. School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, Highfield Campus, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK. 9. Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; Arthritis Research Canada/Arthrite-recherche Canada, Richmond, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: National surveys in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom suggest ultrasound imaging (USI) use by physiotherapists is increasing. However, concerns exist regarding clarity for scopes of practice, and availability and standardisation of training. OBJECTIVES: To investigate physiotherapists' understanding of scopes of practice for the use of USI; clarify the professional contexts, clinical uses and levels of training; and identify barriers preventing physiotherapists' USI use. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, observational survey. METHODS: An Internet-based survey, offered in 20 different languages, was used including items covering five domains: (1) demographic and professional characteristics; (2) knowledge of scope of practice; (3) USI use; (4) USI training content and duration; and (5) perceived barriers to physiotherapists' use of USI. RESULTS: 1307 registered physiotherapists from 49 countries responded; 30% were unsure of the scope of practice for physiotherapists' USI use. 38% of participants were users of USI, reporting varied contexts and clinical uses, reflected in the broader categories of: (i) biofeedback; (ii) diagnosis; (iii) assessment; (iv) injection guidance; (v) research; (vi) and teaching. The training users received varied, with formal training more comprehensive. 62% were non-users, the most common barrier was lack of training (76%). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest physiotherapists' USI use is increasing in various contexts; however, there is uncertainty regarding scopes of practice. There are discrepancies in training offered, with a lack of training the most common barrier to physiotherapists' use of USI. International guidelines, including a USI training framework, are needed to support the consistent and sustainable use of USI in physiotherapy.
BACKGROUND: National surveys in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom suggest ultrasound imaging (USI) use by physiotherapists is increasing. However, concerns exist regarding clarity for scopes of practice, and availability and standardisation of training. OBJECTIVES: To investigate physiotherapists' understanding of scopes of practice for the use of USI; clarify the professional contexts, clinical uses and levels of training; and identify barriers preventing physiotherapists' USI use. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, observational survey. METHODS: An Internet-based survey, offered in 20 different languages, was used including items covering five domains: (1) demographic and professional characteristics; (2) knowledge of scope of practice; (3) USI use; (4) USI training content and duration; and (5) perceived barriers to physiotherapists' use of USI. RESULTS: 1307 registered physiotherapists from 49 countries responded; 30% were unsure of the scope of practice for physiotherapists' USI use. 38% of participants were users of USI, reporting varied contexts and clinical uses, reflected in the broader categories of: (i) biofeedback; (ii) diagnosis; (iii) assessment; (iv) injection guidance; (v) research; (vi) and teaching. The training users received varied, with formal training more comprehensive. 62% were non-users, the most common barrier was lack of training (76%). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest physiotherapists' USI use is increasing in various contexts; however, there is uncertainty regarding scopes of practice. There are discrepancies in training offered, with a lack of training the most common barrier to physiotherapists' use of USI. International guidelines, including a USI training framework, are needed to support the consistent and sustainable use of USI in physiotherapy.
Authors: Prue Molyneux; Sarah Stewart; Catherine Bowen; Richard Ellis; Keith Rome; Matthew Carroll Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-05-20 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Charlotte Dando; Richard Ellis; Matthew Carroll; Prue Molyneux; Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron; Heidi J Siddle; Lindsey Cherry; Alfred Gatt; Catherine Bowen Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Samuel Fernández-Carnero; Carlos Martin-Saborido; Alexander Achalandabaso Ochoa-Ruiz de Mendoza; Alejandro Ferragut-Garcias; Juan Nicolás Cuenca-Zaldivar; Alejandro Leal-Quiñones; Cesar Calvo-Lobo; Tomas Gallego-Izquierdo Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 4.241