Is the Canadian Physiotherapy Association Fulfilling Its Role in Promoting Research?

Abstract

Over the past 100 years, the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (CPA) has played an important role in promoting research activities to support the remarkable transformation of the physiotherapy profession from its beginnings in World War I to the evidence-based profession of today. In this editorial, I question whether the CPA is poised to continue to fulfill this role in the present and future research environments. It is useful first to review CPA’s past role in fostering research. As early as 1923, the first issue of Physiotherapy Canada was published to provide a means of communication for the fledgling association. In the early 1960s, the CPA leadership promoted research activities in two ways. First, it set up a Projects and Studies Committee “to encourage physiotherapists interested in doing simple research.”1(p.91) Over the years, this committee became the Clinical Studies Council, then the Clinical Studies Division, and finally the Research Division. Unfortunately, as confirmed by a nationwide survey in 1973, few physiotherapists had the qualifications to carry out credible research, and it was very difficult for them to obtain research funding.1 Second, Physiotherapy Canada published two articles, the first on the use of surveys and questionnaires and the second on the basic elements of a scientific paper and how to prepare a manuscript.2,3 An editorial also made the case for “comparative studies” and suggested that the CPA create an advisory council, consisting of consultants with methodological expertise, to help physiotherapists design simple projects.4 Later, physiotherapists with master’s and doctoral degrees joined the Physiotherapy Canada board to help drive its scientific evolution. A series of articles and editorials were published in 1980–1981 on subjects such as why research should be done, the contents of a scientific paper, manuscript review and the editing process, and a five-part series on research methodology and applied statistics.1 In 1981, the journal inaugurated the Silver Quill Award to encourage the publication of high-quality articles. This emphasis on scientific excellence, however, did not please all members of the CPA; many preferred a more clinically oriented approach. Thus, the association now also publishes a member magazine, Physiotherapy Practice. Throughout the 1980s, the Research Division promoted articles on the how-to of carrying out research as well as information on courses and abstracts of current physiotherapy research in its newsletter “Research News and Views.”1 In response to the lack of funds available to physiotherapists, the board created the Physiotherapy Foundation of Canada (PFC) in 1983 to provide funds to “support research which will add to the scientific base for the practice of physiotherapy.”1(p.97),5 The PFC has had its funding problems over the years, but it continues to play an important role in promoting physiotherapy research. University physiotherapy programmes evolved rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s in response to both internal and external pressures.6 Physiotherapists obtained master’s and doctoral degrees in other disciplines and returned to teach in physiotherapy programmes, thus upgrading the qualifications of university faculty; this improved their status within the universities. The first master’s programmes in the rehabilitation sciences were offered in the 1970s; doctoral programmes were offered in the 1980s and 1990s. The physiotherapy programmes of the first 50 years evolved rapidly as physiotherapists with doctoral degrees taught in them, engaged in research, and contributed to developing the physiotherapy knowledge base. Today, inspired by Hislop’s seminal article,7 the clinical science underpinning the physiotherapy profession is pathokinesiology: the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of human movement disorders.6 The 1980s and early 1990s were an exciting time for the physiotherapy profession. The annual congresses were well attended, including by the growing cadre of researchers who presented their research findings. Much emphasis at that time in both research and clinical practice was placed on outcome measures to assess the