Observational studyBMJ open2025
Physiotherapists' perspectives on the implementation of direct access to physiotherapy services in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cross-sectional research study of distribution and attributes of licensed physical therapy practitioners in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.SAGE open medicine · 2026Article
- Self-perceived competence and readiness of undergraduate physiotherapy students in treating patients with spinal cord injury.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2026Article
- Perspectives of Physical Therapists in Saudi Arabia on radiological interpretation: attitudes, engagement, and educational needs.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Attitudes of physical therapists toward AI diagnostics: barriers, enablers, and clinical implications.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Work-Related Low Back Pain and Psychological Distress Among Physiotherapists in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigates Saudi Arabian physiotherapists' perspectives on direct access to physiotherapy (DAPT) services, focusing on perceived benefits, barriers and implementation in clinical practice.
methodsA cross-sectional observational study design was used. Data collection occurred between December 2022 and June 2023 via an online structured questionnaire distributed through email and text messages. The DAPT section comprised items on awareness, endorsement, obstacles/barriers to implementation in Saudi Arabia, perceived benefits and expected benefits of various resources to guide evidence-based practice for physiotherapists. This section featured closed-ended questions using a 5-point Likert scale. The study included licensed physiotherapists currently working in Saudi Arabia.
resultsThe study included 401 participants, with a nearly equal distribution of 203 males (50.6%) and 198 females (49.4%). The most common age group was 25-34 years, comprising 70.6% of the participants. A significant proportion (61.6%) were aware of DAPT, and 88% acknowledged its potential to reduce delays in care. However, 49.9% had not engaged with relevant literature. The primary barriers to DAPT identified were laws and regulations (mean=3.69, SD=1.21), physician support (mean=3.59, SD=0.99), entry-level education (mean=3.45, SD=1.17), patient beliefs (mean=3.38, SD=1.24), self-confidence (mean=3.35, SD=1.15) and professional autonomy (mean=3.34, SD=1.22).
conclusionPhysiotherapists in Saudi Arabia demonstrate substantial awareness of direct access. Organisational initiatives and increased awareness are essential to promote direct access. This study highlights that direct patient access to physiotherapists offers significant benefits to patients, healthcare workers and the broader community.
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.