Promoting physical therapists’ use of research evidence to inform clinical practice: part 2 - a mixed methods evaluation of the PEAK program

BMC Medical Education

Robbin Howard²  Jacquelyn M Dylla²  Maria Zibell²  Jonathan C Sum²  Sharon Mickan¹  Julie K Tilson² 

[1] Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK;Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of Southern California, 1540 Alcazar St., CHP 155, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA

关键词: Mixed methods;    Physical therapy;    Post-graduate training;    Education;    Evidence based practice;    Knowledge translation;   

Others  :  866683
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-126

 received in 2013-10-10, accepted in 2014-06-10,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Clinicians need innovative educational programs to enhance their capacity for using research evidence to inform clinical decision-making. This paper and its companion paper introduce the Physical therapist-driven Education for Actionable Knowledge translation (PEAK) program, an educational program designed to promote physical therapists’ integration of research evidence into clinical decision-making. This, second of two, papers reports a mixed methods feasibility study of the PEAK program among physical therapists at three university-based clinical facilities.

Methods

A convenience sample of 18 physical therapists participated in the six-month educational program. Mixed methods were used to triangulate results from pre-post quantitative data analyzed concurrently with qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Feasibility of the program was assessed by evaluating change in participants’ attitudes, self-efficacy, knowledge, skills, and self-reported behaviors in addition to their perceptions and reaction to the program.

Results

All 18 therapists completed the program. The group experienced statistically significant improvements in evidence based practice self-efficacy and self-reported behavior (p < 0.001). Four themes were supported by integrated quantitative and qualitative results: 1. The collaborative nature of the PEAK program was engaging and motivating; 2. PEAK participants experienced improved self-efficacy, creating a positive cycle where success reinforces engagement with research evidence; 3. Participants’ need to understand how to interpret statistics was not fully met; 4. Participants believed that the utilization of research evidence in their clinical practice would lead to better patient outcomes.

Conclusions

The PEAK program is a feasible educational program for promoting physical therapists’ use of research evidence in practice. A key ingredient seems to be guided small group work leading to a final product that guides local practice. Further investigation is recommended to assess long-term behavior change and to compare outcomes to alternative educational models.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Tilson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]World Confederation for Physical Therapy: Policy Statement: Evidence Based Practice [http://www.wcpt.org/policy/ps-EBP webcite]
• [2]Jette DU, Bacon K, Batty C, Carlson M, Ferland A, Hemingway RD, Hill JC, Ogilvie L, Volk D: Evidence-based practice: beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of physical therapists. Phys Ther 2003, 83:786-805.
• [3]Salbach NM, Guilcher SJT, Jaglal SB, Davis DA: Factors Influencing Information Seeking by Physical Therapists Providing Stroke Management. Phys Ther 2009, 89:1039-1050.
• [4]Schreiber J, Stern P, Marchetti G, Provident I: Strategies to promote evidence-based practice in pediatric physical therapy: a formative evaluation pilot project. Phys Ther 2009, 89:918-933.
• [5]Bridges PH, Bierema LL, Valentine T: The propensity to adopt evidence-based practice among physical therapists. BMC Health Serv Res 2007, 7:103. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Thomas S, Mackintosh S, Halbert J: Determining current physical therapist management of hip fracture in an acute care hospital and physical therapists’ rationale for this management. Phys Ther 2011, 91:1490-1502.
• [7]Tilson J, Mickan S, Sum J, Zibell M, Dylla J, Howard R: Promoting physical therapists’ use of research evidence to inform clinical practice: part 1 - theoretical foundation, evidence, and description of the PEAK program. BMC Med Educ 2014, 14:125. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Bandura A: Self-Efficacy - toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977, 84:191-215.
• [9]Knowles MS: Andragogy in Action. 1st edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1984.
• [10]Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, Seers K, Kitson A, McCormack B, Titchen A: An exploration of the factors that influence the implementation of evidence into practice. J Clin Nurs 2004, 13:913-924.
• [11]Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N: Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006, 26:13-24.
• [12]Coomarasamy A, Khan KS: What is the evidence that postgraduate teaching in evidence based medicine changes anything? A systematic review. Br Med J 2004, 329:1017-1019.
• [13]Flores-Mateo G, Argimon JM: Evidence based practice in postgraduate healthcare education: A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2007, 7:8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Menon A, Korner-Bitensky N, Kastner M, McKibbon KA, Straus S: Strategies for rehabilitation professionals to move evidence-based knowledge into practice: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med 2009, 41:1024-1032.
• [15]Salbach NM, Jaglal SB, Korner-Bitensky N, Rappolt S, Davis D: Practitioner and organizational barriers to evidence-based practice of physical therapists for people with stroke. Phys Ther 2007, 87:1284-1303. discussion 1304-1286
• [16]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008, 337:a1655.
• [17]Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Jon E, Farmer A, Griffiths F, Guthrie B, Lester H, Wilson P, Kinmonth AL: Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ 2007, 334:455-459.
• [18]Creswell JW, Fetters MD, Ivankova NV: Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Ann Fam Med 2004, 2:7.
• [19]Tilson J, Kaplan S, Harris J, Hutchinson A, Ilic D, Niederman R, Potomkova J, Zwolsman S: Sicily statement on classification and development of evidence-based practice learning assessment tools. BMC Med Educ 2011, 11:78. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E, Mays MZ: The evidence-based practice beliefs and implementation scales: psychometric properties of two new instruments. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2008, 5:208-216.
• [21]Salbach NM, Jaglal SB: Creation and validation of the evidence-based practice confidence scale for health care professionals. J Eval Clin Pract 2010, 17:794-800.
• [22]Tilson JK: Validation of the modified Fresno test: assessing physical therapists’ evidence based practice knowledge and skills. BMC Med Educ 2010, 10:38. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Rauscher L, Greenfield BH: Advancements in contemporary physical therapy research: use of mixed methods designs. Phys Ther 2009, 89:91-100.
• [24]Carifio J, Perla RJ: Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. J Soc Sci 2007, 3:106.
• [25]Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000, 320:114-116.
• [26]Rebbeck T, Maher CG, Refshauge KM: Evaluating two implementation strategies for whiplash guidelines in physiotherapy: a cluster randomised trial. Aust J Physiother 2006, 52:165-174.
• [27]Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, Hendriks EJM, Koopmanschap MA, Knol DL, Bouter LM, Oostendorp RAB: Implementation of clinical guidelines on physical therapy for patients with low back pain: Randomized trial comparing patient outcomes after a standard and active implementation strategy. Phys Ther 2005, 85:544-555.
• [28]Gross DP, Lowe A: Evaluation of a knowledge translation initiative for physical therapists treating patients with work disability. Disabil Rehabil 2009, 31:871-879.
• [29]Leemrijse CJ, Plas GM, Hofhuis H, van den Ende CH: Compliance with the guidelines for acute ankle sprain for physiotherapists is moderate in the Netherlands: an observational study. Aust J Physiother 2006, 52:293-299.
• [30]Brown CJ, Gottschalk M, Van Ness PH, Fortinsky RH, Tinetti ME: Changes in physical therapy providers’ use of fall prevention strategies following a multicomponent behavioral change intervention. Phys Ther 2005, 85:394-403.
• [31]Stevenson K, Lewis M, Hay E: Do physiotherapists’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice change as a result of an evidence-based educational programme? J Eval Clin Pract 2004, 10:207-217.
• [32]Kaufman DM: Applying educational theory in practice. BMJ 2003, 326:213-216.
• [33]Kirkpatrick D: Evaluation of Training. In Training and Development Handbook. Edited by Development. ASfTa, Craig RL, Bittel LR. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1967. xii, 650 p
• [34]Barnard S, Wiles R: Evidence-based physiotherapy: physiotherapists’ attitudes and experiences in the Wessex area. Physiotherapy 2001, 87:115-124.
• [35]Trede F: Emancipatory physiotherapy practice. Physiother Theory Pract 2012, 28:466-473.