DUTCH RESEARCH AGENDA PHYSICAL THERAPY: DEFINING KNOWLEDGE GAPS, DEFINING THEMES AND PRIORITIZATION

H. Ormel¹, A. Claassen¹, E. van Overmeeren¹, C. Veenhof², C. Speksnijder²

¹Koninklijk Nederlands Genootschap voor Fysiotherapie (KNGF), Quality Policy, Amersfoort, Netherlands, ²UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

Background: In 2017 the royal dutch society for physical therapy (KNGF) has published a research agenda. The research agenda was used to set out calls for research projects, to collaborate with funding agencies, to serve as input for other research agenda’s and to guide the KNGF decision process whether to participate in research proposals. The agenda is built on 3 central themes (Choosing Wisely, Tailor-made Treatment and Technology in Healthcare) and holds 12 questions. After 5 years, 10 financed projects and collaboration in over 150 research proposals, its time to actualize the agenda, bearing in mind the changes in the healthcare system in general.

Purpose: To scientifically address knowledge gaps in physical therapy care through actualization of the research agenda physical therapy by involving a large amount of stakeholders. And to integrate the research agenda in the science policy of the KNGF.

Methods: A project group was composed with members of the KNGF and the scientific college physical therapy (WCF) and an advisory group consisting of members representing the physical therapy workfield, education, research and patients. For further process guidance the project group is advised by the knowledge institute for medical specialists, the dutch funding agency ZonMw and other scientific healthcare associations.
Physical therapist, educators, scientists, guideline developers, other healthcare associations, patient representatives, healthcare insurances representatives, government bodies were asked to submit knowledge gaps in the field of physical therapy by survey. They PICOT format was used and context and importance was described.
The delivered questions were checked by 3 project group members on defined preconditions; scope, clarity and researchability. When consensus wasn’t reached the advisory group repeated the check with 75% agreement needed for consensus. The questions were thematically analyzed by 3 members of the project group. Every question was given a first and second theme.
These themes were combined and reduced to central themes in a consensus meeting at the physical therapy science conference.
The themes will be used to prioritize the knowledge questions using an online rank choice voting tool. In a meeting with all stakeholders in January we will redefine and reduce the questions to max. 5 questions per theme. One spot per theme will be reserved for the patient representatives choice.

Results: A total of 280 knowledge questions were submitted. After the check on preconditions 46 were excluded and consensus wasn’t reached on 39 questions, after consulting the advisory group another 16 questions were excluded. A total of 218 questions are selected for prioritizing. The thematic analyses resulted in 13 themes arising from the questions. After the meeting at the national conference 5 themes remained and all questions were classified in themes.

Conclusions: We were able to identify a large amount of clear researchable questions within the scope of physical therapy in the Netherlands from a broad perspective. From the submitted questions clear themes emerged on which research should focus in the upcoming years. In the next period the questions will be redefined and prioritized and be available to be presented at the WPT meeting in Dubai.

Implications: .

Funding acknowledgements: A project to expand the project was funded by ZonMw.

Keywords:
Research agenda
Policy

Topics:
Professional practice: other
Globalisation: health systems, policies & strategies
Professionalism & ethics

Did this work require ethics approval? No

Reason: Not mandatory