4.4 Review

Knowledge, behaviors, attitudes and beliefs of physiotherapists towards the use of psychological interventions in physiotherapy practice: a systematic review

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 39, Issue 22, Pages 2237-2249

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1223176

Keywords

Psychological interventions; physiotherapy; biopsychosocial; injury; goal setting

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To systematically review and analyze the literature exploring the knowledge, behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs of physiotherapists towards the use of psychological interventions in their practice. Methods: A systematic search was conducted, of articles published between January 1996 and February 2016, using selected electronic databases followed by crosschecking of reference and citation lists. Articles were selected on the basis of the research reported relating to knowledge, behaviors, attitudes or beliefs of physiotherapists towards using a number of different psychological interventions. Quality assessment was conducted by three reviewers independently, and thematic analysis of the included studies was performed. Results: Fifteen studies were included in the analysis. Results indicate that physiotherapists are aware of psychological interventions, are using a variety within practice, and have positive attitudes and beliefs towards their use. However, there are barriers to the incorporation of psychological interventions into their practice, including lack of knowledge, time constraints, and role clarity. The desire for further training was also evident. Conclusion: Notwithstanding the reported awareness and use of psychological interventions in physiotherapy practice, barriers to implementation exist indicating that further research is necessary to address how to effectively equip physiotherapists, to employ such techniques within their scope of practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available