ArticleBMC research notes2026
Attitudes and knowledge of South African healthcare professionals towards blood flow restriction training.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBlood Flow Restriction Training (BFRT) has been shown to have similar benefits to high-intensity exercise conditions without high resistance loads. This training methodology is not included in traditional healthcare professional training, as it is an emerging training tool. Moreover, the attitudes and knowledge of healthcare professionals towards BFRT remain unknown in South Africa. The purpose of this exploratory study was to elucidate the attitudes and knowledge of selected healthcare professionals registered with the Health Professions Council of South Africa regarding BFRT.
resultsA total of 100 healthcare professionals completed an online questionnaire, including exercise physiologists (46%) and physiotherapists (13%), with medical practitioners (14%), occupational therapists (14%), and other professions (13%). Most had heard about BFRT. Exercise physiologists and physiotherapists agreed that BFRT is a feasible clinical tool and that they possess sufficient knowledge of BFRT methodology, whereas other practitioners were indifferent. Most healthcare professionals were significantly indifferent on the role of BFRT in post-surgical interventions and in improving physiological outcomes. Physiotherapists disagreed with the statement that BRFT improves health outcomes in older individuals. At the same time, all healthcare practitioners agreed that BFRT can be used in the healthy adult population, but is contraindicated for pregnant women. A very high proportion of health practitioners agreed on the need for more education and training in BFRT.
conclusionOverall, health care providers demonstrated attitudes that were generally positive toward BFRT, but were indifferent regarding using the tool in rehabilitation and post-surgery. There was low confidence in the application of BFRT, and most participants desired more training and education. Our findings emphasise the need for the adoption and education of BFRT.
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.