Search

Background: The Danish Physiotherapy Research Database for chronic patients receiving Free of Charge Physiotherapy (PhysDB-FCP) was piloted over a 1-year period. The purpose of the PhysDB-FCP is to provide a user friendly digital online structured tool that standardizes initial and follow up clinical assessments generating data that can be used for clinical decision making and support future research in physiotherapy for patients with chronic disease. Although initial assessments were completed, the attrition rate was 73% and 90% at 3- and 6- months, respectively, which suggests problems with the current tool. Objective: To evaluate the perspectives of the physiotherapists that used the PhysDB-FCP and propose changes to the tool based on this feedback. Materials and methods: Fifty of the 103 physiotherapists introduced to the PhysDB-FCP completed an anonymous online survey. Physiotherapists were asked Likert/categorical and yes/no questions on experiences with the PhysDB-FCP within their practice, perceptions of patient experiences, suitability of the resources and support provided by the PhysDB-FCP working group and the ideal administration frequency of the assessments within the PhysDB-FCP. Open ended feedback on possible improvements to the PhysDB-FCP was also collected. Results: Physiotherapists agreed that the PhysDB-FCP was useful for taking a physiotherapy assessment (74%) and the patient survey was useful for goal setting (72%). Although physiotherapists felt the PhysDB-FCP was well-defined (82%), only 36% would like to use a similar tool again. Generally, the PhysDB-FCP was too time-consuming, administered too frequently and included irrelevant items. For example, 72% of physiotherapists took >45 min to administer the assessment in the first consultation which was performed over multiple sessions. Conclusions: The perspectives of physiotherapists using The PhysDB-FCP suggest specific changes that will ensure better use of the tool in future practice. Changes will likely involve administering the assessment less frequently (every 6-months to 1-year), shortening the assessment, and using diagnosis-specific assessment items. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the completeness show a meaningful difference between years for all to guide authors to adequately describe of reporting of physical therapy interventions in interventions (+5%), controls (+6%), treatment the setting and materials used in an inrandomized controlled trials before and after publi- interventions (+6%), exercise-based interventions tervention, the intervention fidelity, and cation of the Template for Intervention Description (+9%), or musculoskeletal (+4%) or neurological the dose or duration of the intervention. and Replication (TIDieR) checklist (a reporting (+7%) physical therapy For exercise interventions, In complex interventions such as exerguideline for interventions) number of sessions was reported more (+21%) in 2018 than in 2000. For musculoskeletal trials, 2 cise-based physical therapy, the number * DESIGN: Meta-research. items were reported more completely in 2018 than of sessions, intensity, and duration of an * METHODS: Wesearched 6 journals fortrials in 2000 (materials, +29%; individual versus group, exercise intervention represent critical using physical therapy interventions that were +22%) and 3 items were reported more completely information.5 Better reporting of interpublished in 2000 and 2018. Two independent as- in neurological trials (mode of delivery, +20%, sessors scored the TIDieR checklist and extracted ventions in physical therapy research will [item 8.1] when +45%, and assessment of fidelity, descriptive information, including Physiotherapy +20%). The item "Who delivered the intervention?" help clinicians implement effective inter- Evidence Database (PEDro) scale scores. We was reported less completely (-23%) in 2018 ventions into clinical practice, ultimately identified control or treatment interventions, than in 2000 in neurological trials. We found no benefiting patient outcomes. exercise-based interventions, and area of physical correlation (r = 0.12) between PEDro scale score Meta-research using the TIDieR therapy. We performed a descriptive analysis and and TIDieR score. checklist has highlighted poor reportdefined a priori a 20% difference between studies published in 2000 and 2018 as meaningful. We *CONCLUSION: There were few meaningful ing of interventions in physical therapy assessed correlations between TIDieR and PEDro improvements in how physical therapy inter- literature.422 In 2013, physical therapy scale scores for all interventions. ventions were described after publication of trials failed to describe at least half of the * RESULTS: In total, 140 articles that met selec- the TIDieR reporting guideline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emerging technologies such as robotics and virtual reality (VR) are being trialled and implemented into physiotherapy practice. As emerging technologies compete for market share, trials on emerging technologies are at risk of spin. For consumers to make informed decisions about whether to use a new technology, trials should accurately portray the results. If spin is present, outcomes may not be comparable to the results reported when interventions are implemented clinically. To determine the amount and type of spin in abstracts of physiotherapy clinical trials that use robotic or VR interventions. A secondary objective is to determine the agreement between raters, both experienced and inexperienced, using an existing 7-item checklist with updated item definitions. We will perform two meta-research reviews on a random set of 100 robotics (study 1) and 100 VR (study 2) trials, from any year, indexed in the PEDro database. Using the updated spin checklist, the abstract of each trial will be assessed in corroboration with full-text. The total spin score and proportion of studies with spin for each item will be reported. Agreement between experienced and inexperienced raters will be determined using kappa statistics. Rater confidence in rating each item will be collected. We will identify if spin is present in robotics and VR literature and evaluate if the spin checklist can be confidently and consistently used by raters. We hope this research will facilitate best-practice reporting of research findings so emerging technologies will be implemented with realistic expectation of clinical outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]