ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2011
Predicting intentions to use research evidence for carpal tunnel syndrome treatment decisions among certified hand therapists.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Decision-Making and Guideline Alignment Among Brazilian Physical Therapists: Evidence From Standardized Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Vignettes.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Sports and exercise-related tendinopathies: a review of selected topical issues by participants of the second International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium (ISTS) Vancouver 2012.British journal of sports medicine · 2013Article
- Patterns of research utilization among Certified Hand Therapists.Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand TherapistsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResearch evidence is not routinely used for clinical decisions among rehabilitation practitioners. The purpose of this study was to model the predictors of intention to use research evidence for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) clinical decisions among certified hand therapists (CHTs).
methodsA total of 308 American CHTs (M age = 46 years, SD = 8.1, M clinical experience = 21 years, SD = 8.2) completed a validated mail survey measuring the variables of intention, attitudes, subjective norms, self-efficacy, workload, and autonomy. Structural equation modeling was used to test the overall model and estimate the direct and indirect relationships of study variables on intention.
resultsThe model demonstrated excellent overall fit and explained 52% of the variance in intention. The direct significant predictors of intention were attitudes (β = 0.43) and subjective norms (β = 0.34) (Ps = 0.00). Self-efficacy and workload did not directly significantly predict intention (Ps = 0.82/0.09, respectively). Workload and autonomy did not indirectly significantly predict intention (Ps = 0.82/0.07, respectively). Neither did workload significantly predict attitudes (P = 0.06). There were no direct or indirect effects of autonomy, self-efficacy, or workload on the intention to use research evidence. However, autonomy significantly predicted self-efficacy (β = 0.36, P = 0.00).
conclusionsIntention to use research evidence in clinical practice is a complex yet predictable phenomenon. Attitudes and subjective norm were identified as significant predictors of intention. Workload, autonomy and self-efficacy did not directly or indirectly effect intentions for research use. Altering subjective norms and managing attitudes about research are recommended as key factors for increasing the use of research evidence for clinical decisions among CHTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.