Factors influencing the use of outcome measures in physical therapy practice

Wedge, Frances M; Braswell-Christy, Jennifer; Brown, Cynthia J.; Foley, Kathleen T.; Graham, Cecilia; Shaw, S

doi:10.3109/09593985.2011.578706

Cited by 76 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…35 Preliminary research into the perceived benefits and barriers of outcomes assessment has provided insight into how the theory of planned behavior can be used to explain clinician behaviors. Previous research 14,16,33,36 has confirmed that a positive attitude toward the value of outcomes assessment plays a large role for those health care professionals who choose to measure outcomes systematically. Changes in policies and job site culture may affect social norms and increase willingness to use standardized outcomes measures.…”

Section: Overall Perceptions Of Promsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Changes in policies and job site culture may affect social norms and increase willingness to use standardized outcomes measures. 29,36 Constraints in practice settings (perceived behavioral control), such as time and access to support, also affect a clinician's decision to use standardized measures. 26 Moreover, clinicians may not use PROMs because they do not believe the available instruments meet their clinical needs.…”

Section: Overall Perceptions Of Promsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Benefits of and Barriers to Using Patient-Rated Outcome Measures in Athletic Training

Valier

Jennings²,

Parsons

et al. 2014

Journal of Athletic Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Patient-rated outcome measures (PROMs) are important for driving treatment decisions and determining treatment effectiveness. However, athletic trainers (ATs) rarely use them; understanding why may facilitate strategies for collection of these outcomes. Objective: To identify the benefits of and barriers to using PROMs in athletic training. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Web-based survey. Patients or Other Participants: A total of 1469 randomly sampled ATs (age = 36.8 ± 9.8 years; 48% female) working in the college/university, 2-year institution, secondary school, clinic, hospital, or industrial/occupational setting. Intervention(s): An e-mail was sent to ATs inviting them to complete a survey regarding the use, benefits, and barriers of PROMs. Athletic trainers who indicated they used PROMs (AT-PRs) completed 65 questions about the benefits of and barriers to their use. Athletic trainers who indicated no use of PROMs (AT-NONs) completed 21 questions about barriers of use. Main Outcome Measure(s): Dependent variables were the endorsements for the benefits of and barriers to the use of PROMs. Results: A total of 458 ATs initiated the survey and 421 (AT-PR = 26%, AT-NON = 74%) completed it (response rate = 28.7%). The most frequently endorsed benefits by AT-PRs were enhancing communication with patients (90%) and other health care professionals (80%), directing patient care (87%), and increasing examination efficiency (80%). The most frequently endorsed barriers by AT-PRs were that PROMs are time consuming (44%), difficult (36%), and confusing (31%) for patients and time consuming for clinicians to score and interpret (29%). The most frequently endorsed problems by AT-NONs were that PROMs are time consuming for clinicians to score and interpret (31%), time consuming (46%) and irrelevant to patients (28%), and lacking a support structure for clinicians (29%). Conclusions: These results suggest that, although benefits to using PROMs exist, there are also barriers. Barriers are similar for AT-PRs and AT-NONs. Strategies to decrease barriers and facilitate the use of PROMs warrant investigation.

show abstract

Section: Overall Perceptions Of Promsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Overall Perceptions Of Promsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of and Barriers to Using Patient-Rated Outcome Measures in Athletic Training

Valier

Jennings²,

Parsons

et al. 2014

Journal of Athletic Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, rehabilitation therapists do not routinely use validated assessment or outcome measures, despite encouragement to incorporate them into routine practice [10]. Frequently cited barriers to clinical use of outcome measures include time constraints, lack of equipment, institution culture and unfamiliarity with assessment tools and their benefits [1,11]. Furthermore, the large number of validated tools hinders consistency of practice even within a single institution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardization of Interdisciplinary Clinical Practice and Assessment in Stroke Rehabilitation

Kinney¹

2013

Int J Phys Med Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 One barrier that restricts the use of OMs is lack of knowledge to choose the most appropriate OM for a given patient or situation. 2,3 Selection of OMs has received considerable attention, [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] but little information exists to specifically describe clinical decision-making processes that clinicians can use in practice. Rehabilitation therapists working with people with multiple sclerosis (MS) have additional challenges in OM selection because of the heterogeneous patient population and symptom variability in individual patients.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting Rehabilitation Outcome Measures for People with Multiple Sclerosis

Cohen¹,

Potter²,

Allen³

et al. 2015

International Journal of MS Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the well-known benefits of using standardized outcome measures (OMs) in clinical practice, a variety of barriers interfere with their use. In particular, rehabilitation therapists lack sufficient knowledge in selecting appropriate OMs. The challenge is compounded when working with people with multiple sclerosis (MS) owing to heterogeneity of the patient population and symptom variability in individual patients. To help overcome these barriers, the American Physical Therapy Association appointed the Multiple Sclerosis Outcome Measures Task Force to review and make evidence-based recommendations for OM use in clinical practice, education, and research specific to people with MS. Sixty-three OMs were reviewed based on their clinical utility, psychometric properties, and a consensus evaluation of the appropriateness of use for people with MS. We sought to illustrate use of the recommendations for two cases. The first case involves a 43-year-old man with new-onset problems after an exacerbation. The second case pertains to an outpatient clinic interested in assessing the effectiveness of their MS rehabilitation program. For each case, clinicians identified areas that were important to assess and various factors deemed important for OM selection. Criteria were established and used to assist in OM selection. In both cases, the described processes narrowed the selection of OMs and assisted with choosing the most appropriate ones. The recommendations, in addition to the processes described in these two cases, can be used by clinicians in any setting working with patients with MS across the disability spectrum. Int J MS Care. 2015;17:181-189.

show abstract

Factors influencing the use of outcome measures in physical therapy practice

Cited by 76 publications

References 23 publications

Benefits of and Barriers to Using Patient-Rated Outcome Measures in Athletic Training

Benefits of and Barriers to Using Patient-Rated Outcome Measures in Athletic Training

Standardization of Interdisciplinary Clinical Practice and Assessment in Stroke Rehabilitation

Selecting Rehabilitation Outcome Measures for People with Multiple Sclerosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About