↓ Skip to main content

Applying self-determination theory for improved understanding of physiotherapists’ rationale for using research in clinical practice: a qualitative study in Sweden

Overview of attention for article published in Physiotherapy Theory & Practice, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Applying self-determination theory for improved understanding of physiotherapists’ rationale for using research in clinical practice: a qualitative study in Sweden
Published in
Physiotherapy Theory & Practice, July 2013
DOI 10.3109/09593985.2013.814185
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petra Dannapfel, Anneli Peolsson, Christian Ståhl, Birgitta Öberg, Per Nilsen

Abstract

Physiotherapists are generally positive to evidence-based practice (EBP) and the use of research in clinical practice, yet many still base clinical decisions on knowledge obtained during their initial education and/or personal experience. Our aim was to explore motivations behind physiotherapists' use of research in clinical practice. Self-Determination Theory was applied to identify the different types of motivation for use of research. This theory posits that all behaviours lie along a continuum of relative autonomy, reflecting the extent to which a person endorses their actions. Eleven focus group interviews were conducted, involving 45 physiotherapists in various settings in Sweden. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis and the findings compared with Self-Determination Theory using a deductive approach. Motivations underlying physiotherapists use of research in clinical practice were identified. Most physiotherapists expressed autonomous forms of motivation for research use, but some exhibited more controlled motivation. Several implications about how more evidence-based physiotherapy can be achieved are discussed, including the potential to tailor educational programs on EBP to better account for differences in motivation among participants, using autonomously motivated physiotherapists as change agents and creating favourable conditions to encourage autonomous motivation by way of feelings of competence, autonomy and a sense of relatedness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 11 15%
Student > Master 9 12%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 21%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Psychology 5 7%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 August 2013.
All research outputs
#16,720,137
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Physiotherapy Theory & Practice
#767
of 1,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,079
of 210,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physiotherapy Theory & Practice
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.