SynthesisPhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2026
Physiotherapy in Mental Health: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review of Practitioner and Student Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions.
Synthesis in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeMental health physiotherapy is increasingly recognised as a specialised area of practice. Adequate knowledge and positive attitudes are essential for ensuring safe evidence-based care and for directly influencing the quality of services delivered. Despite this, research on mental health literacy and attitudes within physiotherapy remains fragmented. This study aims to synthesise evidence on the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of physiotherapists and physiotherapy students regarding roles in mental health practice.
methodsA mixed-methods systematic review was conducted and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024611691). An initial search of Embase (via Ovid), PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL and Google Scholar was performed from inception to November 2024, followed by an updated search of the same databases in January 2026. Empirical studies examining knowledge, attitudes or perceptions related to mental health were included. Study quality was appraised using the mixed method appraisal tool (MMAT). Findings were synthesised narratively for quantitative data and thematically for qualitative data, with integration through a convergent segregated approach.
resultsA total of 42 studies were included, comprising 2780 physiotherapists and 2715 students. Participants generally demonstrated positive attitudes towards people with mental illness, whereas reported mental health knowledge varied from limited to good across studies and populations. Experiential learning through direct client interaction appeared to be associated with a more integrated understanding of mental health in physiotherapy and greater confidence, comfort, empathy and reflective capacity. However, the included studies were methodologically heterogeneous, and psychometric properties of the assessment instruments were often insufficiently documented. DISCUSSION: Participants recognised the importance of mental health support and held positive attitudes, but may not have been prepared to address mental health concerns in physiotherapy practice. Limited education, clinical exposure and role clarity may have contributed to this lack of readiness. These findings support the consideration of more targeted mental health education and structured training initiatives.
trial registrationThe protocol for this review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024611691).
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.