ArticleJournal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation2024
Current use of patient-reported outcome measures by musculoskeletal physiotherapists in Portugal.
Article in Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMusculoskeletal conditions are the leading cause of disability, requiring continuous outcome measurement, including the utilization of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
objectiveThe aims of the study were a) to characterize the use PROMs by Portuguese physiotherapists in patients with musculoskeletal conditions; b) to analyze the associated factors of their use and; c) to identify the barriers and facilitators to their implementation.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was carried out with musculoskeletal physiotherapists working in Portugal. Closed questions were used to describe the use of PROMs. The factors associated with the non-use of PROMs were analysed through logistic regression models (p= 0.05). Barriers and facilitators were assessed through open questions and analyzed using thematic analysis.
resultsOne hundred and fifty-six physiotherapists answered the online survey. Most physiotherapists do not use outcome measures consistently and physical tests are often chosen (70.5%) over PROMs (17.3%). The work sector (p= 0.01; p= 0.015; p= 0.009). the workplace stimulus (p= 0.001) and the physiotherapists' knowledge about PROMs (p= 0.017) were identified as factors associated with the non-use of PROMs. Barriers and facilitators to the use of PROMs are related to physiotherapists' skills, the patients' characteristics, the workplace conditions, and the instruments' characteristics.
conclusionThis study showed the poor use of PROMs by musculoskeletal physiotherapists and identified the associated factors, barriers, and facilitators that should be considered to increase its future use by musculoskeletal physiotherapists in Portugal.
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.