ArticlePhysiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada2013
Evaluating physical therapy students' knowledge of and adherence to the ambassador low back pain guideline.
Article in Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Clinical commentary on collinge et Al.(1.).Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine a process for evaluating physiotherapy (PT) students' knowledge of and adherence to the Ambassador Low Back Pain (LBP) guideline using vignettes.
methodsThe study used a cross-sectional survey design. Participants were PT students who had received information related to the guideline as part of their curriculum. Primary measures were responses to questions about the management of four clinical vignettes. Adherence to guideline recommendations was measured by comparing participant scores to a "guideline-based" set of responses from a physiotherapist involved in developing the Ambassador guideline, which was considered a criterion standard.
resultsA total of 74 respondents provided complete data, for a response rate of 89%; 65 (88%) reported no knowledge of the guideline. Overall consistency with the criterion standard was high (>70%). Respondents demonstrated high adherence when identifying red flags and deciding whether to refer to another provider.
conclusionDespite known exposure, knowledge of the guideline was low in this sample of Canadian PT students. Nevertheless, in several key areas, unconscious adherence was high relative to the guideline-based criterion standard. With minor modifications, the vignettes are suitable for evaluating the Ambassador LBP guidelines in a larger study.
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.