ArticleGhana medical journal2025
Perceived facilitators and barriers to routine utilisation of standardised outcome measures among physiotherapists in Namibia.
Article in Ghana medical journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the context-specific perceived facilitators and barriers to routine utilisation of standardised outcome measures (SOMs) by physiotherapists (PTs) in Namibia. Design: Questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey. Setting: Private or public clinics/hospitals in Namibia. Participants: Practising physiotherapists. Main outcome measures: The study evaluated "routine" utilisation of SOMs operationally defined as using SOMs for 70% to 100% of the time in clinical practice. The study also determined the perceived facilitators and barriers to the routine utilisation. Results: Of the 99 respondents, 96 (96.9%) had complete questionnaires. The majority of participants were female (n=64, 66.7%), had a Bachelor's degree (n=86, 89.6%), trained outside Namibia (n=82, 85.4%), and were practising as private practitioners (n=74, 77.1%). About half of the participants (n=47, 49.0%) "routinely" used SOMs, especially impairment-based tools. The most common reasons for SOMs utilisation were tool affordability and availability. However, about a quarter (n=41, 43.6%) were strongly deterred from using SOMs because of the language of construction of the tool, whilst 36.2% (n=34) highlighted that most SOMs had a higher reading proficiency than the patient population. Time-related barriers were also perceived by 34.0% (n=32) of the participants. Conclusions: Routine utilisation of SOMs by PTs is below average in Namibia, primarily due to tool-related factors, such as the language of construction. Funding: None declared.
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.