↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists’ knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy (Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy), March 2025
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
17 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.
Article details
Title
Comparing the impact of interactive versus traditional e-learning on physiotherapists’ knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making in low back pain management: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy (Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy), March 2025
DOI 10.1080/10669817.2025.2476670
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Despite the recommendations to use a bio-psycho-social framework, many physiotherapists still manage their patients mainly from a biomedical point of view. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of two different e-learning interventions on knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making of physiotherapists managing low back pain (LBP) to increase guideline-consistent care. Physiotherapists were allocated (1/1) either to an experimental or a traditional e-learning intervention. Baseline and post-intervention assessment included the Health Care Providers' Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS), Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ), Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (NPQ), and a clinical vignette. Participants had 2 weeks to complete the post-intervention assessment. Statistics were processed using ANCOVA and Fisher's t-tests. Four hundred nineteen physiotherapists were included in the analysis. Mean scores of HC-PAIRS, Back-PAQ, and NPQ significantly improved post-intervention in both groups. There was a significant effect of the intervention type (experimental versus traditional) on the scores of HC-PAIRS (p < .001; η2p = .243) and Back-PAQ (p < .001; η2p = .135) but not on NPQ scores. Return to work, recommendations assessed with the clinical vignette were significantly more guideline-consistent in the experimental group (p < .001) post-intervention. An interactive e-learning intervention which includes concrete clinical examples and focused on patient's reassurance, self-management, and importance of screening psycho-social factors had more impact than a traditional e-learning intervention to enhance physiotherapists' knowledge, attitudes, and clinical decision-making regarding LBP.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 18%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Unknown 11 65%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 11 65%
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 17 March 2025.
All research outputs
#22,335,124
of 34,391,611 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy (Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy)
#461
of 698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,415
of 364,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy (Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy)
#8
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,391,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. 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 364,480 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 55% of its contemporaries.
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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.