PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO THE USE OF EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE AMONG THAI PHYSICAL THERAPISTS

File
Mathiyakom W1,2, Vongsirinavarat M3, Krityakiarana W4, Hengsomboon N3
1California State University Northridge, Physical Therapy, Northridge, United States, 2University of Southern California, Biological Sciences, Los, United States, 3Mahidol University, Physical Therapy, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand, 4Mahidol University, Ratchasuda College, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) has increased its importance among health professionals as it has been shown to improve quality of care. Barriers to the use of EBP are context-specific. Physical Therapists (PTs) practicing in different countries have different sets of barriers and support. Likewise, barriers to the use of EBP were also different among PTs with different clinical experiences and levels of education. To facilitate the use of EBP, the barriers specific to the clinician populations must be identified such that strategies to overcome the barriers can be specially developed and implemented. Currently, perceived barriers to the use of EBP among Thai PTs have not been reported. Identification of these barriers will provide much-needed information to begin the process of improving the use of EBP, which will, in turn, improve the overall quality of services, and quality of life of patients receiving physical therapy (PT) in Thailand.

Purpose: This study aimed to explore the perceived barriers to the use of EBP among Thai PTs.

Methods: An online survey of licensed PTs throughout Thailand from October 2017 to March 2018 was collected. A Thai version of Jette et al. (2003) survey was used. Both forward and backward translation was performed to ensure the accuracy of the content. Four questions related to the respondents' educational and work characteristics were added to reflect the clinical PT practice in Thailand.

Results: A total of 719 licensed PTs completed the survey. Majority of the participants (68.6%) had been licensed less than ten years, and the highest degree related to PT was Baccalaureate (71.6 %). Three significant barriers to the use of EBP were “insufficient time” (46.1%), “lack of research skills” (41.5%), and “lack of understanding of statistical analysis” (41.4%). The minority of the PTs (14.4%) reported “lack of interest.” Other barriers with less frequencies were “limited ability to critically appraise the literature” (35.0%), “lack of resources for information” (34.9%), “inability to apply research findings to individual patients with unique characteristics” (29.1%), “lack of collective support among colleagues in the facility” (25.5%), “lack of generalizability of the literature findings to their patient population” (24.9%). There were significant associations between “the number of years licensed” and “lack of research skills” (p 0.001), and “understanding of statistical analysis” (P=0.020). Significant associations were also observed between “the highest degrees attained” and “lack of time” (P 0.001), and “research skills” (P 0.001). Differences in opinion regarding insufficient time may be due to differences in the time allocated for patient care (P 0.001), research (P 0.001) and teaching responsibility (P 0.001) among PTs with different highest degree attained.

Conclusion(s): Majority of Thai PTs are interested in using EBP. They consider the lack of time, research and statistics skills to be the significant barriers in using EBP.

Implications: The results emphasize the needs for a time allocated for advocating the use of the EBP in the clinic. The lack of research and statistical skills highlights the needs for improving these skills for clinicians. These results underscore the needs for modifying PT educational curriculum to prepare future PTs better.

Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice, Barriers, Education

Funding acknowledgements: The study was funded in part by the Physical Therapy Association of Thailand.

Topic: Education; Education

Ethics approval required: Yes
Institution: Mahidol University
Ethics committee: Mahidol University Central Institutional Review Board
Ethics number: 2017-147.2308


All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.

Back to the listing