Evidence-based practice and physiotherapy in the 1990s

ISSN： 1532-5040

Source： Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, Vol.17, Iss.2, 2001-04, pp. : 107-121

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

Physiotherapy emerged as a profession only a century ago and has a fragile, but evolving research evidence base. Physiotherapy has been subject to decades of criticism for its lack of research utilisation, and is often perceived as a profession whose treatment techniques lack scientific support. Numerous editorials and scholarly addresses have urged physiotherapists to become research consumers. The 1990s saw evidence-based practice emerge as a new paradigm within health care and health education, and also the emergence of initiatives like the Cochrane Collaboration, and the UK Department of Health Research and Development initiative, which aim to promote evidence use within the health professions. To determine the extent to which physiotherapy has responded to these criticisms and initiatives this paper presents studies that have explored the fundamental questions of whether physiotherapists read journal literature, implement research findings into practice, and employ scientific documentation and measures. The results of the various studies consistently indicate that despite the numerous initiatives to promote evidence use, many physiotherapy clinicians remain unaware of the extent and nature of published research evidence. The assimilation and utilisation of research literature among physiotherapy clinicians is limited, with the exception of those with higher-degree experience. Journal provision and access to journal clubs within physiotherapy hospital departments is poor. The major factors infl uencing practice were education, prior experience, and peer opinion, rather than research and evidence. Deficiencies in quality and type of documentation also emerged in addition to an apparent unwillingness to employ evidence-based outcome measures. Methods for maximising the positive findings and addressing the deficiencies that emerged are proposed.