Adherence to neck and low back pain clinical practice guidelines based on clinical specialization: a survey of physical therapists.

IF 1.6 Q2 REHABILITATION Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1080/10669817.2025.2449977
Kaitlin Kirker, Michael Masaracchio, Birendra Dewan, Melanie O'Connell, Brian Young
{"title":"Adherence to neck and low back pain clinical practice guidelines based on clinical specialization: a survey of physical therapists.","authors":"Kaitlin Kirker, Michael Masaracchio, Birendra Dewan, Melanie O'Connell, Brian Young","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2025.2449977","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate physical therapist adherence to the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy's (AOPT) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of neck and low back pain (LBP) and to compare adherence among varying clinical specializations.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Electronic cross-sectional survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The survey was sent to 17,348 AOPT members and 7,000 American Academy of Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapists (AAOMPT) members. Participants selected the best diagnosis and intervention(s) for six case vignettes based on the current AOPT CPGs for neck and LBP. Diagnostic and intervention adherence rates were reported as total percentages and delineated by the highest level of clinical specialization - fellowship training (PTFs), orthopedic residency training (PTRs), Board Certified Clinical Specialist in Orthopaedic Physical Therapy (PTSs), orthopedic background without clinical specialization (PTOs). Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the effects of clinical specialization (PTFs, PTRs, or PTSs) compared to PTOs on the likelihood of guideline adherence for all six cases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 159 participants who responded to the survey, 152 were eligible and 145 completed demographic data. Participant responses declined as the survey progressed from 125 completing case one to 106 completing case six. The odds ratio from binary logistic regression analyses were not significant for any specialization in all six cases (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.11; <i>p</i> = 0.064).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this manuscript demonstrated variable adherence rates across subgroups of patients with neck and LBP with no significant association between clinical specialization and adherence. Adherence to CPGs is dependent on the clinical presentation of various patient cohorts.</p>","PeriodicalId":47319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2025.2449977","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate physical therapist adherence to the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy's (AOPT) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of neck and low back pain (LBP) and to compare adherence among varying clinical specializations.

Design: Electronic cross-sectional survey.

Methods: The survey was sent to 17,348 AOPT members and 7,000 American Academy of Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapists (AAOMPT) members. Participants selected the best diagnosis and intervention(s) for six case vignettes based on the current AOPT CPGs for neck and LBP. Diagnostic and intervention adherence rates were reported as total percentages and delineated by the highest level of clinical specialization - fellowship training (PTFs), orthopedic residency training (PTRs), Board Certified Clinical Specialist in Orthopaedic Physical Therapy (PTSs), orthopedic background without clinical specialization (PTOs). Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the effects of clinical specialization (PTFs, PTRs, or PTSs) compared to PTOs on the likelihood of guideline adherence for all six cases.

Results: Of the 159 participants who responded to the survey, 152 were eligible and 145 completed demographic data. Participant responses declined as the survey progressed from 125 completing case one to 106 completing case six. The odds ratio from binary logistic regression analyses were not significant for any specialization in all six cases (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.11; p = 0.064).

Conclusions: The results of this manuscript demonstrated variable adherence rates across subgroups of patients with neck and LBP with no significant association between clinical specialization and adherence. Adherence to CPGs is dependent on the clinical presentation of various patient cohorts.

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
基于临床专业化的颈部和腰痛临床实践指南的依从性:对物理治疗师的调查。
目的:调查物理治疗师对骨科物理治疗学会(AOPT)临床实践指南(CPGs)治疗颈下腰痛(LBP)的依从性,并比较不同临床专业的依从性。设计:电子横断面测量。方法:对17348名AOPT会员和7000名美国骨科手工物理治疗师学会(AAOMPT)会员进行问卷调查。参与者根据当前AOPT的颈部和腰痛CPGs,选择了六个病例的最佳诊断和干预措施。诊断和干预依从率报告为总百分比,并根据最高水平的临床专业化-奖学金培训(PTFs),骨科住院医师培训(PTRs),骨科物理治疗委员会认证临床专家(PTSs),无临床专业背景的骨科(PTOs)来划分。对所有6例患者进行二元logistic回归分析,以确定临床专业化(PTFs、PTRs或PTSs)与PTOs对指南依从性可能性的影响。结果:在参与调查的159名参与者中,152人符合条件,145人完成了人口统计数据。随着调查从完成案例1的125人减少到完成案例6的106人,参与者的回答也在减少。二元logistic回归分析的优势比在所有6例中均不显著(OR = 0.16;95% ci: 0.02, 1.11;p = 0.064)。结论:这篇论文的结果表明,不同亚组的颈部和腰痛患者的依从率不同,临床专业化和依从性之间没有显著的关联。对CPGs的依从性取决于不同患者群体的临床表现。
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
2.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of original research, case reports, and reviews of the literature that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of manual therapy, clinical research, therapeutic practice, and academic training. In addition, each issue features an editorial written by the editor or a guest editor, media reviews, thesis reviews, and abstracts of current literature. Areas of interest include: •Thrust and non-thrust manipulation •Neurodynamic assessment and treatment •Diagnostic accuracy and classification •Manual therapy-related interventions •Clinical decision-making processes •Understanding clinimetrics for the clinician
期刊最新文献
Cervicothoracic junction mobilization versus autogenic muscle energy technique for chronic mechanical neck pain: A randomized controlled trial. Short-term effectiveness of dry needling on pain and ankle range of motion in athletes with medial tibial stress syndrome- a randomized control trial. Spinal mobilization in infants reconsidered. Author response to Eric Saedt "Spinal mobilization in infants reconsidered". Tendential and unscientific opinion regarding spinal manipulative therapy in the pediatric population.
×
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