4.2 Article

Measuring therapeutic relationship in physiotherapy: conceptual foundations

Journal

PHYSIOTHERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 38, Issue 13, Pages 2339-2351

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2021.1987604

Keywords

Therapeutic relationship; therapeutic alliance; physiotherapy; assessment; patient-provider relationship; measurement

Categories

Funding

  1. Canadian Hemophilia Society-Novo Nordisk Psychosocial Research Award
  2. Bayer Hemophilia Awards Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper discusses the importance of the therapeutic relationship in physiotherapy and the need for a strong conceptual foundation for measuring it. It introduces Miciak's physiotherapy therapeutic relationship framework and explores how it could inform the development of measurement tools. The paper also addresses current challenges in measuring therapeutic relationship and suggests ways to overcome them.
The therapeutic relationship in physiotherapy refers to the beneficial or healing relationship between the patient and physiotherapist. Interest in researching therapeutic relationships in physiotherapy is growing and there is a need for a measure of therapeutic relationship with a strong conceptual foundation. Body of paper:We begin with a general discussion of the state of therapeutic relationship measurement in physiotherapy research - notably, how current research is based on measures borrowed and adapted from psychotherapy. Then, we introduce Miciak's physiotherapy therapeutic relationship framework, discuss why it offers a solid foundation for measurement development, and describe the key concepts in the framework. We then discuss various approaches to measuring therapeutic relationship, illustrating how Miciak's framework could be used to inform their development. We end by discussing current challenges in measuring therapeutic relationship and how these could be addressed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available