Facilitators and Barriers to the Use of Outcome Measures by Certified Lymphedema Therapists

IF 1 Q4 ONCOLOGY Rehabilitation Oncology Pub Date : 2023-01-24 DOI:10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000331
D. Doubblestein, Bryan A. Spinelli, A. Goldberg, C. A. Larson, A. Yorke
{"title":"Facilitators and Barriers to the Use of Outcome Measures by Certified Lymphedema Therapists","authors":"D. Doubblestein, Bryan A. Spinelli, A. Goldberg, C. A. Larson, A. Yorke","doi":"10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Various outcome measures (OMs) have been used with individuals with breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL). There have not been studies investigating the facilitators and barriers to the use of OMs by certified lymphedema therapists (CLTs) on BCRL. The purposes of this study was to (1) identify facilitators and barriers for use of OMs reported by CLTs and (2) investigate the association of personal and professional characteristics of CLTs and their knowledge or beliefs about OMs. Methods: Cross-sectional online survey research design. Electronic surveys were distributed to CLTs from various institutions. Data from 70 physical therapists and 41 occupational therapists were analyzed. Point-biserial correlations examined associations and logistic regression examined predictors to OMs facilitators and barriers. Results: Certified lymphedema therapists agreed that OMs help direct a plan of care (90.1%), improve quality of care (76.6%), and determine the efficacy of their intervention on BCRL (72.7%). Certified lymphedema therapists reported difficulty knowing the best OM to choose due to numerous options (67.3%). Barriers for OMs included lack of knowledge and time, availability in workplace, and personal preferences. Characteristics associated with barriers and facilitators were few and poorly correlated. Conclusion: Certified lymphedema therapists agree on the benefits of and to the use of OMs, however, physical therapist CLTs may value the use of OMs less than occupational therapists. Certified lymphedema therapists experience barriers to use of OMs related to lack of knowledge and implementation skills. Further guidance is needed in selecting OMs for breast cancer survivors with BCRL to reduce barriers to their use.","PeriodicalId":54153,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation Oncology","volume":"28 1","pages":"121 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.REO.0000000000000331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Various outcome measures (OMs) have been used with individuals with breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL). There have not been studies investigating the facilitators and barriers to the use of OMs by certified lymphedema therapists (CLTs) on BCRL. The purposes of this study was to (1) identify facilitators and barriers for use of OMs reported by CLTs and (2) investigate the association of personal and professional characteristics of CLTs and their knowledge or beliefs about OMs. Methods: Cross-sectional online survey research design. Electronic surveys were distributed to CLTs from various institutions. Data from 70 physical therapists and 41 occupational therapists were analyzed. Point-biserial correlations examined associations and logistic regression examined predictors to OMs facilitators and barriers. Results: Certified lymphedema therapists agreed that OMs help direct a plan of care (90.1%), improve quality of care (76.6%), and determine the efficacy of their intervention on BCRL (72.7%). Certified lymphedema therapists reported difficulty knowing the best OM to choose due to numerous options (67.3%). Barriers for OMs included lack of knowledge and time, availability in workplace, and personal preferences. Characteristics associated with barriers and facilitators were few and poorly correlated. Conclusion: Certified lymphedema therapists agree on the benefits of and to the use of OMs, however, physical therapist CLTs may value the use of OMs less than occupational therapists. Certified lymphedema therapists experience barriers to use of OMs related to lack of knowledge and implementation skills. Further guidance is needed in selecting OMs for breast cancer survivors with BCRL to reduce barriers to their use.
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
认证淋巴水肿治疗师使用结果测量的促进因素和障碍
背景:各种结果测量(OMs)已用于乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿(BCRL)患者。目前还没有研究调查认证淋巴水肿治疗师(clt)在BCRL上使用OMs的促进因素和障碍。本研究的目的是:(1)确定clt报告的OMs使用的促进因素和障碍;(2)调查clt的个人和职业特征与他们对OMs的知识或信念的关联。方法:采用横断面在线调查研究设计。电子调查问卷已分发给各机构的对照表。来自70名物理治疗师和41名职业治疗师的数据进行了分析。点双序列相关性检验了OMs促进因素和障碍的关联,逻辑回归检验了预测因素。结果:经认证的淋巴水肿治疗师同意OMs有助于指导护理计划(90.1%),提高护理质量(76.6%),并确定他们对BCRL的干预效果(72.7%)。经认证的淋巴水肿治疗师报告说,由于选择太多(67.3%),他们很难知道选择最好的OM。OMs的障碍包括缺乏知识和时间、工作场所的可用性和个人偏好。与障碍和促进因素相关的特征很少,相关性很差。结论:经认证的淋巴水肿治疗师同意使用OMs的好处,然而,物理治疗师clt可能比职业治疗师更重视OMs的使用。经认证的淋巴水肿治疗师在使用OMs方面遇到障碍,这与缺乏知识和实施技能有关。在为患有BCRL的乳腺癌幸存者选择OMs方面,需要进一步的指导,以减少使用这些药物的障碍。
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
1.70
自引率
22.20%
发文量
48
期刊最新文献
Assessment of rehabilitation practices during hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the United States: a survey. Indocyanine Green Lymphography in Conservative Lymphedema Therapy: A Scoping Review A Review of Late Effects in Pediatric Cancer: Implications for Rehabilitation The Psychological and Biological Benefits of Mind-Body Therapy Interventions for Informal Caregivers of Individuals With Cancer: A Systematic Review The Effect of Inspiratory Muscle Training in Patients With Lung Cancer After Surgery: A Systematic Review
×
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