File
Pathak A1, Ribeiro DC2, Abbott JH1
1University of Otago, Surgical Sciences, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2University of Otago, Physiotherapy, Dunedin, New Zealand
Background: Routine use of standard outcome measures (OMs) is recommended by various guidelines and is also articulated in the Core Standards of Physiotherapy Practice by the World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT). However, use of OMs is not as common as desired. This is particularly so in developing countries.
Purpose: This study aimed to:
(a) describe current use of OMs by physiotherapists;
(b) identify facilitators and barriers as reported by physiotherapists to use OMs; and
(c) contrast these among developing and developed countries.
We aimed to identify the lessons learned from developed countries and explore how such lessons can be used to promote use of OMs in developing countries.
Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search on five databases and extracted, analysed and synthesized information about perceived facilitators, barriers and possible strategies to improve OMs uptake by physiotherapists.
Results: We identified a total of 26 articles. Based on the limited literature available from developing countries, OMs use in developing countries was considerably less than those reported in developed countries and OMs used are primarily impairment-based. Multiple studies from both developed and developing countries reported time constraints, knowledge about selection of OMs, use and interpretation of OMs and lack of organizational support as the main barriers for using OMs. Awareness of OMs did not necessarily translate to use. Lack of culturally relevant OMs that were available in local language and low level of patient comprehension were obstacles that were unique to developing countries. PTs in developing countries also reported higher time constrains due to greater number of patients. Positive attitude to and familiarity of OMs, peer-support, organisational support and requirements of OMs use, recent academic or professional development activity exposure, and involvement in research were most commonly identified as facilitators for OM use.
Conclusion(s): There is a need to improve OM uptake among physiotherapists, especially in developing countries. Research projects, including but not limited to cross-cultural adaptations of recommended measures that encompass the relevant domains of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is warranted. Entry-level education should focus on usage of OMs in practice and understanding psychometric properties. Organisations should also consider either mandating or encouraging use of specific OMs and enabling physiotherapists by providing access to OMs and prerequisite training on their use.
Implications: Barriers to use of OMs in developing countries are different to those in developed countries. Regulating bodies, professional physiotherapy organizations, healthcare organizations and researchers must promote usage of OMs through targeted actions that address specific barriers highlighted in this review.
Keywords: Outcome assessment, measurement, Developing countries
Funding acknowledgements: The presenting author is supported by doctoral scholarship from University of Otago.
Purpose: This study aimed to:
(a) describe current use of OMs by physiotherapists;
(b) identify facilitators and barriers as reported by physiotherapists to use OMs; and
(c) contrast these among developing and developed countries.
We aimed to identify the lessons learned from developed countries and explore how such lessons can be used to promote use of OMs in developing countries.
Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search on five databases and extracted, analysed and synthesized information about perceived facilitators, barriers and possible strategies to improve OMs uptake by physiotherapists.
Results: We identified a total of 26 articles. Based on the limited literature available from developing countries, OMs use in developing countries was considerably less than those reported in developed countries and OMs used are primarily impairment-based. Multiple studies from both developed and developing countries reported time constraints, knowledge about selection of OMs, use and interpretation of OMs and lack of organizational support as the main barriers for using OMs. Awareness of OMs did not necessarily translate to use. Lack of culturally relevant OMs that were available in local language and low level of patient comprehension were obstacles that were unique to developing countries. PTs in developing countries also reported higher time constrains due to greater number of patients. Positive attitude to and familiarity of OMs, peer-support, organisational support and requirements of OMs use, recent academic or professional development activity exposure, and involvement in research were most commonly identified as facilitators for OM use.
Conclusion(s): There is a need to improve OM uptake among physiotherapists, especially in developing countries. Research projects, including but not limited to cross-cultural adaptations of recommended measures that encompass the relevant domains of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is warranted. Entry-level education should focus on usage of OMs in practice and understanding psychometric properties. Organisations should also consider either mandating or encouraging use of specific OMs and enabling physiotherapists by providing access to OMs and prerequisite training on their use.
Implications: Barriers to use of OMs in developing countries are different to those in developed countries. Regulating bodies, professional physiotherapy organizations, healthcare organizations and researchers must promote usage of OMs through targeted actions that address specific barriers highlighted in this review.
Keywords: Outcome assessment, measurement, Developing countries
Funding acknowledgements: The presenting author is supported by doctoral scholarship from University of Otago.
Topic: Outcome measurement; Professional practice: other
Ethics approval required: No
Institution: Univeristy of Otago
Ethics committee: Ethics Committee
Reason not required: This was a review of the literature. There was no involvement of human or animal subjects.
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
