Background. Evidence-based practice has become a major issue in physical therapy. Many evidence-based guidelines, however, are not used extensively after dissemination, and interventions aimed at increasing guideline adherence often have limited effects.Objective. As a prerequisite for changing this situation, the aims of this study were to gain an in-depth understanding of the determinants of guideline adherence among physical therapists in the Netherlands and to evaluate the opportunities of a theoretical framework in this respect. Design and Methods.This observational study consisted of 3 focus group interviews (nϭ12, 10, and 8) between November 2002 and January 2003. Physical therapists were asked to discuss their opinions about and experiences with the Dutch guidelines for low back pain. Data were analyzed qualitatively using a directed approach to content analysis. Both the interview route and the analysis of the interviews were informed by Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations Theory.Results. Our study yielded in-depth insights into the various determinants of guideline adherence. Overall, the participants had rather unfavorable opinions about issues related to the dissemination of the guidelines (first phase of the diffusion process) and provided relatively little information on the subsequent adoption process (second phase of the diffusion process). The theoretical framework appeared to be a useful tool to properly structure the focus group interviews, to systematically analyze the data collected, and to determine that supplementary interviews would be necessary to cover the entire diffusion process. Conclusions.Our findings indicated that the diffusion process of guidelines among physical therapists was not yet completed. The use of theory can provide added value to guideline implementation studies.

BackgroundSystematic planning could improve the generally moderate effectiveness of interventions to enhance adherence to clinical practice guidelines. The aim of our study was to demonstrate how the process of Intervention Mapping was used to develop an intervention to address the lack of adherence to the national CPG for low back pain by Dutch physical therapists.MethodsWe systematically developed a program to improve adherence to the Dutch physical therapy guidelines for low back pain. Based on multi-method formative research, we formulated program and change objectives. Selected theory-based methods of change and practical applications were combined into an intervention program. Implementation and evaluation plans were developed.ResultsFormative research revealed influential determinants for physical therapists and practice quality managers. Self-regulation was appropriate because both the physical therapists and the practice managers needed to monitor current practice and make and implement plans for change. The program stimulated interaction between practice levels by emphasizing collective goal setting. It combined practical applications, such as knowledge transfer and discussion-and-feedback, based on theory-based methods, such as consciousness raising and active learning. The implementation plan incorporated the wider environment. The evaluation plan included an effect and process evaluation.ConclusionsIntervention Mapping is a useful framework for formative data in program planning in the field of clinical guideline implementation. However, a decision aid to select determinants of guideline adherence identified in the formative research to analyse the problem may increase the efficiency of the application of the Intervention Mapping process.

No abstract

While the epiphyseal stress fracture of the finger’s middle phalanx is a known sport-specific injury occurring only in adolescent climbers, and in other locations it’s rare, no femoral neck stress fracture (FNSF) in sports climbing has yet been reported. An experienced female sport climber (37y, 160 cm, 45 kg, BMI 17.5) suffered from pain in the left inguinal region while climbing, and later, also required a stick to walk. Routine radiography missed the FNSF and it was many weeks before a MRI accurately provided that diagnosis. The time between the X-ray and MRI should have been minimized as it resulted in a delayed diagnosis, unnecessary pain and delayed healing. In this situation the initial clinical investigation, the patient’s history and the X-ray did not lead to a clear diagnosis, and the initial treatment was ineffective. Further investigation by MRI and / or CT scans should have taken place sooner and would have been essential.