↓ Skip to main content

Training programmes to improve evidence uptake and utilisation by physiotherapists: a systematic scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Training programmes to improve evidence uptake and utilisation by physiotherapists: a systematic scoping review
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1121-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica Stander, Karen Grimmer, Yolandi Brink

Abstract

Research training programmes are a knowledge translation (KT) intervention which aim to improve research evidence uptake by clinicians. Whilst KT training programmes have been reported to significantly improve evidence uptake by physiotherapists, it is unclear which aspects of training optimally assist KT into physiotherapy practice. The purpose of the review was to establish the body of evidence regarding KT training programmes to improve physiotherapists' use of evidence-based practice (EBP) and clinical practice guidelines (CPG). A systematic scoping review was undertaken in line with the adapted Arksey and O'Malley framework. Nine electronic databases (CINAHL, BIOMED CENTRAL, Cochrane, Web of Science, PROQUEST, PUBMED, OTseeker, Scopus, ERIC) were searched. Targeted keywords identified primary research articles of any hierarchy, that described the nature and impact of KT training programmes for physiotherapists. Where systematic reviews were identified, the component primary studies were considered individually for relevance. Critical appraisal was not undertaken due to the nature of a scoping review, and data was reported descriptively. Ten systematic reviews were identified (yielding four relevant primary studies). Five additional primary studies were identified (two randomised controlled trials, two non-randomised controlled trials and one pre-post study) which were not included in the original systematic reviews. This provided nine eligible primary research studies for review. The KT strategies were all multi-faceted. Interactive sessions, didactic sessions, printed material and discussion and feedback were consistently associated with effective outcomes. When KT strategies addressed local barriers to EBP utilisation, there were better success rates for EBP and CPG uptake, irrespective of the outcome measures used. There were no consistent ways of measuring outcome. Multi-faceted KT strategies designed to address local barriers to knowledge translation were most effective in improving EBP/ CPG uptake among physiotherapists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 15%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 30 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 33 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 18%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 35 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,296,667
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,295
of 3,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,523
of 473,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#26
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 473,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.