ArticleArchives of physiotherapy2023
Scientific approach and attitudes among clinically working physiotherapists in Sweden -a cross sectional survey.
Article in Archives of physiotherapy, 2023. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Readiness and Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice Among Physiotherapists: A Cross-Sectional Study and Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire Validation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders and physiotherapy utilization in primary care - a registry-based study in Sweden.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Scientific approach, attitudes, and perspectives on research among Swedish physiotherapy students-a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence based medicine (EBM) should be an endeavor within all healthcare professions. Knowledge and understanding of science are important prerequisites of EBM.
objectiveThe aim was to examine and compare perspectives on science and perceived inhibiting and facilitating factors for the assimilation and implementation of scientific information among clinically working specialist- and non-specialist physiotherapists in Sweden.
methodsA cross-sectional survey study was conducted via a web-based questionnaire. Clinically active physiotherapists in Sweden were invited to participate. Attitudes and perspectives were compared between physiotherapists with completed or on-going specialist training, and non-specialists.
resultsIn total, 1165 physiotherapists responded to the survey (75.5%, (n = 870) women, mean age 44.8 (SD 12.1), whereof 25.5% (n = 319) with completed or ongoing specialist training). The majority of participants had a high interest in science but did not consider a general scientific approach to be applied within physiotherapy. The main perceived inhibiting factor for a clinical practice more based on scientific evidence was lack of time. Specialists had in general higher interest and ability to interpret and evaluate science, and prioritized scientific evidence to a higher extent.
conclusionAmong respondents, a scientific approach was considered valuable within physiotherapy but not considered fully applied in practice. The higher interest and perceived ability to interpret science among specialists indicates that further education and specialist training can increase both interest and understanding of science among physiotherapists.
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.