The Use of Evaluation Methods for Physiotherapy Treatment in Infants With Bronchiolitis-a Survey Study.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-08-11 DOI:10.1080/01942638.2024.2386475
Sonja Andersson Marforio, Eva Ekvall Hansson, Annika Lundkvist Josenby
{"title":"The Use of Evaluation Methods for Physiotherapy Treatment in Infants With Bronchiolitis-a Survey Study.","authors":"Sonja Andersson Marforio, Eva Ekvall Hansson, Annika Lundkvist Josenby","doi":"10.1080/01942638.2024.2386475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to identify and describe methods that physiotherapists use to evaluate the immediate effects of their interventions for infants in hospital with acute respiratory tract infections.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We constructed an anonymous digital survey to physiotherapists working with infants aged 0-24 months in Sweden. The survey was distributed by e-mail and posted on web pages for seven weeks, which included a reminder.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Replies were obtained from 88 respondents, and 52 completed surveys remained to be analyzed. All 21 counties in Sweden were represented. The most prevalent answer options were as follows: more productive/increased or decreased cough (73%), increased oxygen saturation (35%), changed secretion sounds (33%), reduced work of breathing (20%), and parental report (16%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The physiotherapists reported to use diverse methods for evaluation of their interventions. However, to a large degree they used subjective measures, which depend on the individual clinician's assessment and interpretation. The evaluation methods vary in psychometric properties and robustness. This study identifies the need for consensus about valid, reliable, and clinically relevant evaluation methods for this patient group.</p>","PeriodicalId":49138,"journal":{"name":"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2024.2386475","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to identify and describe methods that physiotherapists use to evaluate the immediate effects of their interventions for infants in hospital with acute respiratory tract infections.

Methods: We constructed an anonymous digital survey to physiotherapists working with infants aged 0-24 months in Sweden. The survey was distributed by e-mail and posted on web pages for seven weeks, which included a reminder.

Results: Replies were obtained from 88 respondents, and 52 completed surveys remained to be analyzed. All 21 counties in Sweden were represented. The most prevalent answer options were as follows: more productive/increased or decreased cough (73%), increased oxygen saturation (35%), changed secretion sounds (33%), reduced work of breathing (20%), and parental report (16%).

Conclusions: The physiotherapists reported to use diverse methods for evaluation of their interventions. However, to a large degree they used subjective measures, which depend on the individual clinician's assessment and interpretation. The evaluation methods vary in psychometric properties and robustness. This study identifies the need for consensus about valid, reliable, and clinically relevant evaluation methods for this patient group.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
支气管炎婴儿物理治疗评估方法的使用--一项调查研究。
目的:本研究旨在确定并描述物理治疗师用于评估其对住院的急性呼吸道感染婴儿进行干预的直接效果的方法:我们对瑞典 0-24 个月婴儿的物理治疗师进行了匿名数字调查。调查通过电子邮件发送,并在网页上发布了七周,其中包括提醒:结果:共收到 88 位受访者的回复,还有 52 份完成的调查问卷有待分析。瑞典所有 21 个县均有代表参与。最普遍的答案选项如下:咳嗽更多/增加或减少(73%)、血氧饱和度增加(35%)、分泌物声音改变(33%)、呼吸功减少(20%)以及父母报告(16%):物理治疗师报告称,他们使用了多种方法对其干预措施进行评估。然而,他们在很大程度上使用的是主观测量方法,这取决于临床医生个人的评估和解释。这些评估方法在心理测量特性和稳健性方面各不相同。这项研究表明,有必要就针对这一患者群体的有效、可靠且与临床相关的评估方法达成共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: 5 issues per year Abstracted and/or indexed in: AMED; British Library Inside; Child Development Abstracts; CINAHL; Contents Pages in Education; EBSCO; Education Research Abstracts (ERA); Education Resources Information Center (ERIC); EMCARE; Excerpta Medica/EMBASE; Family and Society Studies Worldwide; Family Index Database; Google Scholar; HaPI Database; HINARI; Index Copernicus; Intute; JournalSeek; MANTIS; MEDLINE; NewJour; OCLC; OTDBASE; OT SEARCH; Otseeker; PEDro; ProQuest; PsycINFO; PSYCLINE; PubsHub; PubMed; REHABDATA; SCOPUS; SIRC; Social Work Abstracts; Speical Educational Needs Abstracts; SwetsWise; Zetoc (British Library); Science Citation Index Expanded (also known as SciSearch®); Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition; Social Sciences Citation Index®; Journal Citation Reports/ Social Sciences Edition; Current Contents®/Social and Behavioral Sciences; Current Contents®/Clinical Medicine
期刊最新文献
Knowledge Translation Interventions to Increase the Uptake of Evidence-Based Practice Among Pediatric Rehabilitation Professionals: A Systematic Review. Letter to the Editor. Development and Validation of the Participation Questionnaire for Preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Structural Validity, Internal Consistency, and Construct Validity. Home Participation of Infants With and Without Biological Risk in the First Year of Life: A Cross-Sectional and Comparative Study. Telehealth of Infants at Risk During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Physical Therapists' and Caregiver's Perceptions and Costs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1