Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Improving physiotherapists' ability to recognise the presence of a serious pathology with a digital educational training: a mixed methods feasibility study.
Trial report 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDue to an aging population, the incidence of musculoskeletal disorders and serious pathologies like spinal fractures and cancer is rising. Physiotherapists are ideally positioned to screen for signs and symptoms of serious pathologies (red flags) early; however, training in recognizing these signs and symptoms is limited. Additionally, evidence on the effectiveness of digital educational tools for this purpose is sparse. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a digital educational training designed to improve physiotherapists' ability to identify serious pathologies.
methodsA randomised mixed-methods feasibility study ran from March to May 2024, involving Austrian physiotherapists recruited via email. After providing informed consent and demographic data, participants completed a structured digital educational training. This training comprised three asynchronous chapters, with Chap. 2 featuring modules in orthopaedics, oncology, and internal medicine. Various digital formats (video podcast, presentations, animations) of different durations were included to gauge user preferences. Feedback was gathered using the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) and a mixed-methods survey. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively using SPSS, and qualitative data inductively using MAXQDA.
resultsThirty-nine physiotherapists registered, and 30 completed the digital educational training. The median FIM score was 5, indicating high feasibility. Participants favoured digital materials lasting 6 to 15 min. Qualitative feedback highlighted the need for platform improvements (e.g., flexible module access) and enhancements to the digital educational training (e.g., detailed background information, more complex vignettes, varied formats). Participants appreciated the asynchronous learning possibility, progression tracking, and varied short digital formats but noted the limitations of online learning compared to in-person interactions.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that a digital educational training aimed at improving physiotherapists' ability to detect serious pathologies is feasible. Participants emphasized the importance of adaptable platforms and a variation in digital materials to enhance the training. Limitations included the need for additional complex vignettes and limited participation in face-to-face discussions. Future research should explore flexible learning options, complex scenarios, and direct feedback mechanisms.
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.