ArticleBMC medical education2025
Professional education and clinical application of balance control and reactive balance training: a cross-sectional national survey of Polish healthcare professionals.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a gap in educational resources and knowledge translation for reactive balance training (RBT). This study aimed to examine current educational practices and training experiences related to balance control and RBT among Polish healthcare professionals.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was distributed among members of a Polish regulated healthcare profession. Participants were eligible if they were licensed healthcare professionals involved in treating clients with balance or mobility impairments. The questionnaire included 55 items across six sections, covering demographics, clinical practice, treatment approaches, and knowledge, attitudes, barriers, facilitators, and clinical use of RBT. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests for group comparisons.
resultsOf the 286 valid respondents, only 26.5% reported using RBT in clinical practice, while 54.2% either had not heard of it or did not use it. Non-users commonly reported first learning about RBT through the survey itself (44.0%). Conceptual confusion with other approaches such as Bobath concept and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation was evident. Users demonstrated higher confidence, greater workplace support, and fewer safety concerns. All groups expressed strong interest in further training, particularly through hands-on workshops and instructional videos.
conclusionRBT remains underused in Poland, partly due to limited formal education and conceptual misunderstandings. Addressing these gaps through structured, hands-on training and institutional support may enhance implementation. These findings highlight the need for targeted educational strategies and broader knowledge translation efforts in underrepresented regions.
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.