ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
A Survey on the Use of Outcome Measures during Physical Therapy Interventions by Physical Therapists in Korea.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characteristics of exercise and rehabilitation intervention clinical trials registered with Clinical Research Information Service: a review.Journal of exercise rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Use of standardized outcome measures among physical therapists in the United States: A cross-sectional survey study.PloS one · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the current status of patient care provided by Korean physical therapists (KPTs) in clinical practice by studying the outcome measures (OMs) used in physical therapy interventions among KPTs with experience in treating patients. A total of 225 KPTs with experience in treating patients in clinical settings participated in the study and completed the online questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions about the use of OMs and the reasons for using them, as well as the types, benefits, and barriers of OMs. The participants' responses were analyzed and reported in terms of frequencies and percentages. A total of 220 questionnaires were analyzed. The results show that the majority of KPTs in clinical practice used OMs during interventions. The main reasons for using OMs were to check the patient's condition and to determine the direction and effectiveness of treatment. In terms of the types of OMs used, the highest percentage of subjects used both patient-reported OMs (PROMs) and performance-based OMs (PBOMs). They chose OMs that were quick and easy to use and used them voluntarily. Barriers to and reasons for not using OMs were similar, including lack of benefits, lack of time, and problems with patient performance and uncooperative behavior. When analyzing the effect of demographic characteristics on the use of OMs, we found that physical therapists specializing in musculoskeletal and neurological systems, physical therapists with longer treatment times, and physical therapists who valued OMs were more likely to use them. Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that improvements in the work environment and healthcare system are needed to enhance the professionalism of KPTs working in the field of physical agent therapy by improving their awareness of Oms and improving the quality of physical therapy interventions.
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.