4.6 Article

Practitioner and organizational barriers to evidence-based practice of physical therapists for people with stroke

Journal

PHYSICAL THERAPY
Volume 87, Issue 10, Pages 1284-1303

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20070040

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify practitioner barriers (education, attitudes and beliefs, interest and perceived role, and self-efficacy) and organizational barriers (perceived support and resources) to physical therapists' implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) for people with stroke. Subjects The participants were 270 physical therapists providing services to people with stroke in Ontario, Canada. Methods A cross-sectional mail survey was conducted. Results Only half of respondents had learned the foundations of EBP in their academic preparation or received training in searching or appraising research literature. Although 78% agreed that research findings are useful, 55% agreed that a divide exists between research and practice. Almost all respondents were interested in learning EBP skills; however, 50% indicated that physical therapists should not be responsible for conducting literature reviews. Average self-efficacy ratings were between 50% and 80% for searching and appraising the literature and below 50% for critically appraising psychometric properties and understanding statistical analyses. Despite Internet access at work for 80% of respondents, only 8% were given protected work time to search and appraise the literature. Discussion and Conclusion Lack of education, negative perceptions about research and physical therapists' role in EBP, and low self-efficacy to perform EBP activities represent barriers to implementing EBP for people with stroke that can be addressed through continuing education. Organizational provision of access to Web-based resources is likely insufficient to enhance research use by clinicians.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available