Audio file
File
C.R. Rimando1, A. Chiong Maya1, J.I. Baltazar1, M.E. Daquioag1, A.V.D. dela Cruz1, A.A. Laigo1, A. Miñoza1, M.M.R. Ojeda1, S.K. Tria1
1University of Santo Tomas, College of Rehabilitation Sciences - Physical Therapy Department, Manila, Philippines
Background: Lower extremity injuries, especially of the knees and ankles, are common among athletes; and problems in proprioception contribute significantly to these injuries. The literature reported various methods of assessing proprioception for the knee and ankle joints and it includes the following: [1] threshold of detecting passive motion (TDPM), [2] Joint Position Reproduction (Ipsilateral and Contralateral), and [3] Active Movement Extent Discrimination Assessment (AMEDA). Many physical therapists also incorporate proprioceptive assessment with functional tests like single-leg hop test and balance tests. As these are being reported in the literature, still there is no standard assessment that is being utilized by the physical therapists in the Philippines.
Purpose: This study aims to describe the knee and ankle proprioception assessment practice of sports physical therapists in Metro Manila, Philippines. It also aims to identify the commonly used knee and ankle proprioception assessment; and to determine whether these are being documented in the practice or not.
Methods: This research is a cross-sectional descriptive study to describe the sports physical therapy proprioceptive assessment of the knee and ankle joints. Sports clinics in Metro Manila were identified in order to select practicing sports physical therapists who have at least 1 year of experience. Electronic mails were sent to invite them and to seek their approval to participate in the study. Upon agreeing to participate, a validated survey questionnaire was administered by sending a link via email and social media platforms to determine their utilization of proprioceptive assessment methods. A total of 19 sports physical therapists participated using convenience sampling method. The collected data from the survey were analyzed using descriptive statistics using SPSS Statistics 22.0 for quantitative data, and thematic analysis using NVIVO 12 for qualitative data.
Results: For utilization, 79% reported use of qualitative analysis of assessing proprioception of the knee and ankle joints, 37% used Joint Position Recognition using joint angle-measuring device, 37% indicated that they incorporate proprioception assessment with functional tests, 16% reported to perform proprioception assessment but are not sure with its name, and 5% stated non-utilization of proprioception assessment. The result also showed that some physical therapists are employing multiple methods of assessing knee and ankle proprioception. Factors influencing the choice of proprioceptive assessment include availability of tools/equipment, severity of injury and accuracy of the method. In terms of documentation, only 38% reported that the proprioceptive assessment used was documented using its specific name, while 13% stated that they do not document their proprioceptive assessment.
Conclusion(s): Physical therapists in the Philippines utilize different methods of proprioception assessment for the knee and ankle joints, which in most cases, are qualitative in nature and are incorporated with functional tests. There is a limited utilization of quantifiable, evidence-based assessment of proprioception among sports physical therapists. The findings also showed that majority of sports physical therapists did not perform specific documentation of the proprioceptive assessment.
Implications: The results imply that there is limited utilization of a more objective quantifiable, evidence-based assessment of proprioception. Therefore, further research and training can be done to increase the awareness of the sports physical therapists.
Funding, acknowledgements: No funding.
Keywords: Proprioception, Assessment, Utilization
Topic: Sport & sports injuries
Did this work require ethics approval? Yes
Institution: University of Santo Tomas
Committee: College of Rehabilitation Sciences - Ethics Review Committee
Ethics number: SI-2019-024
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
