Journal Information
Vol. 26. Issue 4.
(01 July 2022)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
1273
Vol. 26. Issue 4.
(01 July 2022)
Original Research
Full text access
What is the believability of evidence that is read or heard by physical therapists?
Visits
1273
Chad E. Cooka,b,c,
Corresponding author
chad.cook@duke.edu

Corresponding author at: Department of Orthopaedics, Duke University, 311 Trent Drive, Durham 27710, NC, United States of America.
, Flavio Bonnetd, Nicolas Maraganoe, Alessandra N. Garciaf, Arne Vielitzg, Sean P. Rileyh
a Department of Orthopaedics, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America
b Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America
c Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America
d AGENCE, EBP, Paris, France
e Servicio de Kinesiología, Clínica Traumatológica Los Conquistadores, Providencia, Santiago, Chile
f College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences, Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Campbell University, Buies Creek, NC, United States of America
g Rose-Zeuner Physiotherapie, Germany
h Department of Physical Therapy & Human Movement Science, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT, United States of America
Highlights

  • Physical therapists (PTs) from 36 countries participated in the survey.

  • PTs strongly believe what they read or hear about most treatments.

  • Belief is influenced by years of practice and time and access to literature.

  • Social media engagement was not the most robust predictor in beliefs.

This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (1)
Abstract
Background

Physical therapists obtain information from a variety of sources. The sources may influence their believability and use in clinical practice.

Objectives

In this hypothesis-based study, we queried physical therapists (PTs) on the believability of evidence across six musculoskeletal treatment domains and analyzed variables that predicted the strength of beliefs.

Methods

This international survey included six different language portals and used a snowball dispensation strategy. PTs who were credentialed, licensed, or who practiced in the field, were queried on the believability of six treatment domains (i.e., exercise, manual therapy, psychologically-informed practice, sports/occupational performance, thermal/electrical agents, and pain science/patient education) and potential predictors of believability (i.e., social media use, years of practice, time and access to literature, specialization, confidence in reviewing literature and attributions of the researcher).

Results

In total, 1098 PTs from 36 countries completed the survey. PTs had strong beliefs in what they read or hear about exercise, sports/occupational performance, pain science/patient education, and psychologically-informed interventions. There was only moderate believability regarding manual therapy treatment and weak believability associated with thermal/electrical agents. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that the most robust predictor to outcome relationships included time and access to literature and believability of pain science/patient education, years of clinical practice and believability of psychologically informed practice, and believability of thermal/electrical agents.

Conclusion

An important takeaway from this study is that believability was influenced by several factors (primarily by years of practice, attributions of the researcher, and time and access to literature) and appeared to vary across treatment domains.

Keywords:
Credibility
Musculoskeletal
Physical therapy
Social media
Full Text
Introduction

Historically, journal articles and search engines such as PubMed were the most frequently used sources of evidence-based information for physical therapists (PTs).1 However, PTs have been progressively inundated with information on treating patients with musculoskeletal disorders. This information has many forms, such as journal publications, social media, clinical practice guidelines, free training videos on the internet, podcasts, online and live continuing educational courses, conferences, and peer-to-peer interactions. Even well-informed, motivated clinicians have difficulty navigating the extreme amount of information (i.e., >1.275 million biomedical papers are published each year).2 Because most physical therapy-related musculoskeletal treatments have similar effects and are “in the gray zone,”3 disseminators of evidence are looking at creative ways to support their intervention preferences.4

Recent studies have shown that predatory publications have eroded the believability (trustworthiness) of information in the health professions secondary to an increasing numbers of retractions, replication failures, biased results from corporate-sponsored studies, researcher bias, spin, method inadequacy, omission, or withholding of contradictory results, dropping of unsupported hypotheses,5-9 and an emphasis on publishing studies that demonstrate “incredibility more so than credibility”.10 In addition, randomized controlled trials are hampered by p-hacking,11,12 changing research questions from the primary outcome,13 or modifying the analysis after initial findings fail to support the researchers' beliefs13 through statistically significant results.14 By definition, believability is the quality of being credible, convincing, trustworthy, or realistic.15 For clinicians, believability occurs when they find both the information and the source are credible and trustworthy. A lack of believability might be one of the many reasons there is a 17-year delay in implementing research into practice.16

Musculoskeletal interventions used by PTs include several domains, such as therapeutic exercise, manual therapy, sports/occupational performance, psychologically-informed treatment, pain science/patient education, and thermal/electrical agents (modalities). Over the last 50 years, thousands of studies have explored each domain's treatment effectiveness. Unfortunately, the findings are mixed and characterized by inconsistencies in the fidelity of interventions within treatment domains.17-19 Mixed findings and inconsistencies in fidelity can lead to a distrust of reported findings and, ultimately, a potential lack of believability in the information provided. Fidelity and believability issues may be why 50% to 70% of PTs use interventions of unknown value.20,21

We used an international survey that queried PTs on the believability of musculoskeletal treatment domains (i.e., exercise, manual therapy, psychologically-informed practice, sports/occupational performance, thermal/electrical agents, and pain science/patient education). Our survey was available in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and Italian. We used a hypothesis-based approach for this study,22 designed to investigate a pre-set series of assumptions before data collection and analyses. Hypothesis-based approaches use specific provisional statements that are designed to measure the relationships between two variables. Hypothesis-based approaches identify the variables of interest, the expected strength of association of the variables, and function as a substitute for traditional aims or objectives in a study.22 For this study, we focused on answering three primary directional hypotheses:

Hypothesis One: Treatments involving manual therapy and sports/occupational performance would demonstrate moderate believability scores, whereas exercise, psychologically informed practice, thermal/electrical agents, and pain science/patient education would demonstrate strong believability scores.

Hypothesis Two: All predictive variables would exhibit bivariate relationships with our treatment domains. Specifically, we hypothesized that social media engagement, confidence in reviewing the literature, attributions of the researcher, and time and access to literature would be positively associated with stronger believability. Conversely, we hypothesized that advanced certificate or masters-level training and years of clinical practice would exhibit negative associations with treatment believability.

Hypothesis Three: During multivariable modeling, higher social media engagement and attributions of the researcher would be positively associated with stronger believability across the majority of treatment domains and would yield the highest effect measures of all predictors.

Methods

The Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) guidelines23 were used to design and report this study. The study was approved by Duke University's institutional review board (Pro00109794).

The study design was an international, cross-sectional survey that was implemented through social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Instagram) using snowball sampling. It was accessible from November 5th 2021 to December 13th 2021 (38 days). Reminders were sent weekly to maximize the survey visualization. The study targeted licensed, qualified, or registered PTs worldwide who also had access to the social media platforms that were used to identify respondents. Only PTs were included in the summary statistics.

We created a novel questionnaire that had 27 questions and was divided into three sections. The first section of the survey was designed to query individuals' believability of the information they read/hear on the six domains of physical therapist musculoskeletal treatment interventions. The six domains included: a) therapeutic exercise; b) manual therapy-based treatment; c) psychologically-informed practice (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy); d) sports/occupational performance; e) thermal/electrical agents (modalities); and f) pain science/patient education. The six domains were decided upon by the consensus of the authorship group and were confirmed for appropriateness by eight external research PTs.

The second section included several questions related to the beliefs and experiences of PTs who completed the survey. Some of the sections' items were modified from pre-existing tools,24-26 whereas others were novel. The goal of the second section was to query their social media engagement, time dedicated to reading research and access, the PTs' confidence in reading research, and the role of the researcher attributions (the researcher's reputation). Finally, the third section was designed to capture demographic data regarding the respondent.

Study investigators included PTs from the United States, Brazil, France, Germany, and Chile. A majority of investigators are bilingual, whereas two are multilingual. All investigators' native tongues were represented in this study. The investigators used dual back-translation from the English consent and survey document (all cases involved at least two people). All those who participated in back-translation were PTs and native to the languages translated and had the material context. Each back-translator works in a translation role (from English to their language), in continuing education courses, journal editorship, or university education. A majority were also educators with PhD training.

We pre-tested the face and content validity of the survey by giving it to 30 PTs of varying clinical backgrounds in which English (N = 11), French (N = 4), Portuguese (N = 3), Spanish (N = 4), German (N = 5), and Italian (N = 3) was the primary language. For pre-testing, the PTs were instructed to indicate the clarity of the survey and whether the information addressed their thoughts associated with believability (content validation). We edited the survey to reflect the clinicians' suggestions and had six distinct surveys in English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, German, and Italian that represented the same underlying context, but were modified for each country's unique cross-cultural distinctions. The 30 PTs who provided input were not part of the final survey; their role was to contribute to the face and content validity of the survey.

We captured three primary types of data for our outcomes of interest: 1) outcomes, 2) predictors, and 3) descriptive. Outcomes' data included the six treatment domains. For each of the six domains, respondents provided a believability score that ranged between 1 (complete disbelief) and 5 (complete belief), reflecting what PTs' read or heard.

Predictor variables included those for the second and third sections of the survey. Those pertinent to the study included social media engagement, time dedicated to reading research, confidence in reading research, researcher attributions (reputation), specialization training, and years of clinical practice. In addition, several variables were summated to create the single targeted predictor variable in many cases. Finally, additional descriptor variables included sex, highest clinical degree, highest academic degree, area of practice, continent and country of practice, and specific specializations (e.g., sports, manual therapy, pain science, etc.).

We powered our study for hypothesis three, which would require multiple variable regression analyses. A sample of at least 98 individuals providing 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.15, allowing for six predictors and an alpha level of 5% was required.27 Because of variability in electronic survey sampling (e.g., incomplete surveys, etc.), we targeted a much larger sample because the survey was available for completion across multiple languages and involved snowball sampling methods.

Qualtrics served as our survey platform. We set a benchmark that at least 60% of the survey must be completed before considering its use in the secondary objective. Missing data were managed using Listwise deletion, which instructs the statistical software to skip the missing variable and omit it from the analysis.28

We analyzed means, standard deviations, proportions, and percentages to describe our survey respondent population. For our first hypothesis, we reported the mean and standard deviation of the believability scores (1 to 5, a score of 1 representing disbelief, and a score of 5 representing complete belief). Based on consensus selection across the authorship group, we categorized strong believability of the evidence as scores from 3.75 to 5.0. A moderate believability of the evidence included scores from 2.75 to 3.74, whereas a weak believability of the evidence included scores from 0.0 to 2.74.

We ran univariate linear regression analyses for each treatment domain using our predictor variables for the secondary hypothesis. We reported unstandardized beta coefficients, standardized Beta coefficients, t-statistics, and p values for each analysis. Standardized beta coefficients were calculated so that the variances of dependent and independent variables equal 1.29 Standardized coefficients are unitless (but transferable across analyses) and refer to how many standard deviations a dependent variable will change per standard deviation increase in the predictor variable. Higher values from zero reflect a greater effect size. T statistics are calculated by dividing the beta coefficient by its standard error.29 It is a form of measure of precision in which larger values reflect a stronger relationship (and effect) between the predictor and the outcome variable.30 If the standardized coefficient and t statistic are negative, the association has an inverse relationship.30

A multiple linear regression analysis was completed to answer our third hypothesis. After checking for violations of collinearity, relationships that demonstrated a p-value of <0.15 were included in a multiple linear regression analysis (with a reverse stepwise regression) to determine what combination of beliefs and experiences of the PTs were related to the believability score for each domain. For each analysis, p values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Initially, 1429 individuals consented to participate in the survey. Of those, 325 (28%) did not complete the requisite 60% of the survey. Of the 28% who did not complete 60% of the survey, nearly every survey left the believability questions blank. An additional six reported they were not PTs and were removed from the dataset. This left 1098 (77% of the original sample) completed (>60%) surveys for analyses. Respondents were from 36 different countries across six continents (Fig. 1). A majority were from Europe (67.5%) and South America (22.4%), practiced in musculoskeletal settings (89.9%), and identified as male (70.1%). Certificate or Master's level training was reported in a low of 17.7% (psychologically-informed practice) to a high of 36.8% (masters of musculoskeletal medicine) of the sample (Table 1).

Fig. 1.

Countries or Autonomous Nations Represented in the Survey.

(0.32MB).
Table 1.

Respondent characteristics (N = 1098).

Characteristic  Responses Frequency (percentage) 
Years of Practice   
Student Physical Therapist  13 (1.2) 
1-5 years  350 (33.0) 
6-10 years  267 (25.2) 
11-15 years  182 (17.2) 
16-20 years  101 (9.5) 
Over 20 years  147 (13.9) 
Sex   
Male  743 (70.1) 
Female  310 (29.2) 
Other or prefer not to answer  7 (0.7) 
Highest clinical degree   
Certificate  419 (39.6) 
Bachelor's degree  264 (25.0) 
Master's degree  202 (19.1) 
Doctorate degree  83 (7.8) 
Other  90 (8.5) 
Highest academic degree   
Certificate  284 (35.6) 
Bachelor's degree  125 (15.7) 
Master's degree  251 (31.5) 
Doctorate degree  92 (11.5) 
Other  45 (5.6) 
Area of Practice   
Musculoskeletal  923 (89.9) 
Other  105 (10.1) 
Continent of Practice   
Europe  704 (67.5) 
South America  234 (22.4) 
North America  90 (8.6) 
Asia  4 (0.4) 
Africa  7 (0.7) 
Australia/New Zealand  4 (0.4) 
Certificate or Masters in Manual Therapy  431 (39.3) 
Certificate or Masters in Sports Medicine  268 (24.4) 
Certificate or Masters in Musculoskeletal Medicine  404 (36.8) 
Certificate or Masters in Pain Science of Psychologically Informed Practice  194 (17.7) 
Certificate or Masters in "other" Specialization  246 (22.4) 

Hypothesis One: The highest mean levels of believability were for the treatments associated with exercise (4.34/5.0), followed by pain science/patient education (4.18/5.0), and then psychologically informed practice (4.03/5.0) (Table 2). These findings confirmed our first hypothesis that exercise, psychologically-informed practice, and pain science/patient education would exhibit strong believability. Findings did not confirm our hypothesis regarding thermal/electrical agents, which scored weak believability. Overall, manual therapy believability was moderate, which supported our hypothesis; however, sports/occupational performance exhibited strong believability, albeit barely (we projected only moderate believability).

Table 2.

Believability of evidence associated with physical therapy interventions.

What is the believability regarding:  Mean ± SD  Belief in Evidence  Confirmed our hypothesis (Yes/No) 
  • 1.

    The evidence about exercise treatments that I read or hear?

 
4.34 ± 0.64  Strong (3.75–5.0)  Yes 
  • 2.

    The evidence about manual therapy treatments that I read or hear?

 
3.53 ± 0.77  Moderate (2.75–3.74)  Yes 
  • 3.

    The evidence about psychological and behavioral strategies/ interventions that I read or hear?

 
4.03 ± 0.66  Strong (3.75–5.0)  Yes 
  • 4.

    The evidence about sports or occupational performance treatments that I read or hear?

 
3.78 ± 0.71  Strong (3.75–5.0)  No 
  • 5.

    The evidence about thermal and electrical agents (modalities) treatment that I read or hear?

 
2.69 ± 1.07  Weak (0.0–2.74)  No 
  • 6.

    The evidence about patient education (including pain science education) that I read or hear?

 
4.18 ± 0.72  Strong (3.75–5.0)  Yes 

Hypotheses Two: Table 3 outlines our six predictor variables' bivariate linear regression associations with the six practice domains, respectively. As we hypothesized, higher social media engagement levels were positively associated with believability. This was present in four of the six treatment domains (exercise, psychologically-informed treatment, sports/occupational performance, and pain science/patient education). Time and access to the literature were positively associated with two domains (manual therapy and thermal/electrical agents), which confirmed our hypothesis. They were negatively associated with one domain (pain science/patient education), which refuted our hypothesis. Confidence in reviewing the literature was negatively related to the believability of pain science/patient education, which refuted our hypothesis. As hypothesized, years of clinical practice and certificate or Master's training were negatively associated with believability for most domains.

Table 3.

Univariate relationships between respondent characteristics and believability of evidence.

  Area of Belief  Unstandardized Beta Coefficient  Standardized Beta Coefficient  T-score  P value 
Certificate or Master's Training in Dedicated Areas
Exercise treatment−0.087  .047  −1.83  .06 
Manual therapy treatment.064  .034  1.14  .27 
Psychologically-informed treatment*−0.108  .049  −2.20  .03 
Sports/occupational performance.029  .017  .550  .58 
Thermal and electrical agents.012  .005  .154  .88 
Pain science and education*−0.186  −0.105  −3.49  <0.01 
Self-Reported Social Media Engagement Levels
Exercise treatment*.063  .016  4.09  <0.01 
Manual therapy treatment.026  .019  1.39  .16 
Psychologically-informed treatment*.045  .085  2.78  <0.01 
Sports/occupational performance*.048  .085  2.79  <0.01 
Thermal and electrical agents.029  .035  1.14  .25 
Pain science and education*.055  .097  3.16  <0.01 
Years of Clinical Practice since Graduation
Exercise treatment*−0.046  −0.101  −3.29  <0.01 
Manual therapy treatment.017  .030  0.99  .32 
Psychologically-informed treatment*−0.065  −0.138  −4.53  <0.01 
Sports/occupational performance−0.004  −0.008  −0.258  .79 
Thermal and electrical agents*.095  .127  4.15  <0.01 
Pain science and education*−0.081  −0.158  −5.22  <0.01 
Time and Access to Literature
Exercise treatment−0.010  −0.012  −0.387  .69 
Manual therapy treatment*.069  .072  2.34  .02 
Psychologically-informed treatment−0.024  −0.030  −0.964  .34 
Sports/occupational performance.073  .038  1.23  .22 
Thermal and electrical agents*.156  .118  3.89  <0.01 
Pain science and education⁎⁎−0.064  −0.071  −2.32  .02 
Attributions of the Researcher
Exercise treatment.123  .082  2.67  <0.01 
Manual therapy treatment.149  .082  2.67  <0.01 
Psychologically-informed treatment.092  .060  1.94  .05 
Sports/occupational performance.116  .070  2.29  .02 
Thermal and electrical agents.135  .055  1.78  .07 
Pain science and education.089  .053  1.72  .08 
Confidence in Reviewing the Literature
Exercise treatment−0.020  −0.025  −0.829  .41 
Manual therapy treatment.025  .026  .857  .39 
Psychologically-informed treatment−0.045  −0.056  −1.83  .06 
Sports/occupational performance.020  .023  .758  .45 
Thermal and electrical agents.078  .060  1.96  .05 
Pain science and education⁎⁎−0.087  −0.099  −3.24  <0.01 

Confirmed our hypothesis.

⁎⁎

Refutes our hypothesis.

Hypothesis Three: For the six different multiple linear regression analyses, there were three variables that were consistent predictors of the believability outcomes: 1) years of clinical practice, 2) attributions of the researcher, and 3) time and access to the literature (Table 4). Although we hypothesized that the researcher's social media engagement and the attributions of the researchers would increase the believability of research, this was not supported by our findings. The strongest predictors in the models were the relationship of time and access to literature and believability of pain science/patient education (t statistic=−4.73), and years of clinical practice and the believability of psychologically-informed practice (t statistic=−4.53) and believability of thermal/electrical agents (t statistic=4.34). Social media engagement was included in only one model (exercise), whereas attributions of the researcher were positively associated in three models (believability for exercise, manual therapy, and sports performance).

Table 4.

Multiple variable relationships between respondent characteristics and believability of evidence.

Predictor Variables  Unstandardized Beta Coefficient  Standardized Beta Coefficient  T-score  P value 
Believability of Exercise Treatment that is Read or Heard
Years of Clinical Practice since Graduation  −0.039  −0.087  −2.81  <0.01 
Attributions of the Researcher  .102  .068  2.21  .03 
Self-Reported Social Media Engagement Levels  .081  .061  1.98  .04 
Believability of Manual Therapy Treatment that is Read or Heard
Attributions of the Researcher  .150  .083  2.71  <0.01 
Time and Access to Literature  .071  .073  2.40  .02 
Believability of Psychologically Informed Treatment that is Read or Heard
Years of Clinical Practice since Graduation  −0.065  −0.138  −4.53  <0.01 
Believability of Sports/Occupational Performance Treatment that is Read or Heard
Attributions of the Researcher  .116  .070  2.29  .02 
Believability of Thermal or Electrical Agents Treatments that is Read or Heard
Years of Clinical Practice since Graduation  .099  .132  4.34  <0.01 
Time and Access to Literature  .161  .123  4.04  <0.01 
Believability of Pain Science and Patient Education Treatments that is Read or Heard
Time and Access to Literature  −0.074  −0.016  −4.73  <0.01 
Confidence in Reviewing the Literature  −0.073  −0.083  −2.72  <0.01 
Years of Clinical Practice since Graduation  −0.148  −0.079  −2.58  .01 
Discussion

We explored the believability of selected treatment domains that are common in the profession of physical therapy. We opted to query PTs worldwide because PTs generally have similar scopes of practice and use common sources of educational materials, journals, and social media share sites. We used a hypothesis-based approach to query a priori assumptions22 to ensure that the variables were selected for good reasons and contributed to the overall research question.22 We were correct on several hypotheses but found selected instances where the opposite finding occurred. Our results are worth discussing further.

Hypothesis One: Overall, there was strong believability across most treatment domains. Our findings suggest that the respondents believed what they read or heard regarding exercise, sports/occupational performance, pain science/patient education, and psychologically-informed interventions. This strong level of belief occurs despite challenges in the quality of the literature used to summarize treatment effectiveness. For example, more than 87% of systematic reviews exploring musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions have “critically low” quality on the AMSTAR 2, with one-half of the reviews “spinning” the results and one-third generating conclusions based on predominantly low-quality clinical trials.31 It has also been identified that 58% of the randomized clinical trials included within systematic reviews exploring musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions have unknown external validity and include randomized clinical trials with internal validity scores rated as low quality (< 6/10) on the PEDro scale.31

These limitations notwithstanding, exercise for musculoskeletal conditions is well supported in the literature for treatment of a variety of diagnoses, such as low back pain,32 frozen shoulder,33 and neuropathic pain.34 Evidence supports the use of pain science/patient education and psychologically-informed practice.35-37 Still, these interventions exhibit slightly smaller effect sizes within the literature35-37 (as compared to exercise), and might be more effective when combined with exercise.38 Sports/occupational performance gaps in the literature are quite pronounced,39-41 which is why we hypothesized only moderate believability.

Our study's believability around manual therapy was moderate (mean ± SD: 3.53 ± 0.77). This may be a reflection of the negativity involving manual therapy on social media,42 as manual therapy treatments are supported by systematic reviews,43–46 and independent clinical studies,47–54 and are embedded in several clinical practice guidelines.55–59 Believability around thermal/electrical agents was weak (2.69 ± 1.07) and was the lowest of the six treatment domains. At present, literature supporting thermal/electrical agents as a stand-alone intervention is limited,60 although evidence in preclinical work suggests disease-modifying mechanisms.61 We are uncertain why respondents appear not to believe this published evidence (or what they hear on social media); perhaps they see value in using thermal/electrical agents, which was not queried in our study.

Hypothesis Two: Unsurprisingly (because of our sampling methods), 60.4% of individuals indicated that they routinely used social media to improve their physical therapy knowledge. Social media can effectively disseminate information because the necessary data are not restricted behind a firewall.4 It is important to recognize that there is a high risk of misinformation on social media, and further exploration of its potential for promoting less than credible and untrustworthy results is needed.62 Risks of misinformation are especially problematic when social media influencers have a poor background in research and/or are biased in their opinions or support for a specific intervention.4

We found a positive relationship between the researcher's attributions (the researcher's reputation of record) and the believability of the evidence in a treatment domain. In fact, 75.5% of respondents reported that the attributions of the researcher influenced their believability of the information. Researchers prefer to cite other researchers with strong reputations.63 Just a single widely cited high-impact article is very likely to cause what the group calls “a reputation boost”.63 In contrast, the Matthew effect, which is a phenomenon that well-known scientists often get more credit for their work even if it is very similar to that of an unknown colleague,64 can negatively influence unknown researchers who develop similarly designed studies. This suggests that well-known researchers can influence clinical practice by their suggestions and biases, especially if combined with an active social media presence.

Physical therapists pursue advanced training for several reasons, including adapting to an expanded role of a first-contact provider, widening one's skill set to address a broadening scope of practice, and curiosity.65 A past study has shown that fellowship-trained PTs were more likely to achieve greater treatment effect sizes than PTs without residency or fellowship training.66 However, the benefit of years of experience is less convincing within the literature as it does not seem to improve outcomes.67,68 We found that increased years in practice and certificate and Master's level training were inversely associated with the believability of the literature for pain science/patient education, exercise, psychologically-informed treatment, and thermal/electrical agents. We hypothesized that increased clinical experience would be related to a lower likelihood of believing what is read or heard because clinicians would likely develop a defined pattern over time. Variations in literature may not fit the pattern. Future studies should examine this further.

Hypothesis Three: In our multiple linear regression models, three predictors were consistently retained: years of clinical practice, attributions of the researcher, and time and access to literature. Years of clinical practice was discussed previously, was negatively associated with believability, and was retained in four of the six models (exercise, psychologically-informed practice, thermal/electrical agents, and pain science/patient education). Attributions of the researcher was also previously discussed and was retained in three of the six models (exercise, manual therapy, sports/occupational performance). We find it interesting that two treatment domains (manual therapy and sports/occupational performance) have historically involved strong advocates with charismatic influences on treatment approaches (more so than published evidence), which suggests they still influence practitioners. Time and access to the literature were positively associated with the believability of manual therapy and thermal/electrical agents but negatively associated with pain science/patient education. The strongest effect size was the negative association between time and access to literature and believability of pain science/patient education. Recent reviews suggest that there is value in pain science/patient education for chronic non-specific spinal pain,69 migraine and overlapping pain conditions,70 and chronic musculoskeletal pain when combined with exercise.71 Potentially, because pain science/patient education is complex and involves dedicated study, the negative believability reflects the lack of training in this area.

Limitations: There are several limitations to this study. Using social media to identify candidates for the survey is a form of selection bias, which should have increased the importance of social media as a predictor within the study; it did not. The sample was Eurocentric, with most respondents completing the survey in French, English, or German. A majority of respondents were also male, which does not reflect the sex characteristics of the profession but does reflect activity on social media. There is a risk of order bias because the questions were not alternated in the survey. To consolidate the survey, we combined sports and occupational performance and pain science education and patient education, and one could argue that these factors are independent of one another. Although significant efforts were made for face, content, and cross-cultural validity, there is a risk that our novel survey may lack validity. Finally, in our survey, we did not measure the source of believability (e.g., Twitter, manuscript, podcast, etc.). We did not attempt to measure if the respondents believed the literature supported or condemned a dedicated treatment approach.

Conclusion

Although most PT respondents believed the evidence they read or heard about exercise, sports/occupational performance, pain science/patient education, and psychologically-informed interventions, there was only moderate believability regarding manual therapy treatment and weak believability associated with thermal/electrical agents. Several factors influence the believability of the information, the most compelling involved years of clinical practice (which had a negative relationship toward believability), attributions of the researcher (which was positively associated with believability), and time and access to the literature (which had mixed associations).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the participants of the international survey.

References
[1]
D.W. Fell, J.F. Burnham, J.M. Dockery.
Determining where physical therapists get information to support clinical practice decisions.
Health Info Libr J, 30 (2013), pp. 35-48
[2]
M.A. Valenzuela-Escárcega, Ö. Babur, G. Hahn-Powell, D. Bell, T. Hicks, E. Noriega-Atala, et al.
Large-scale automated machine reading discovers new cancer-driving mechanisms.
Database, (2018),
[3]
A. Chandra, D. Khullar, T.H. Lee.
Addressing the challenge of gray-zone medicine.
N Engl J Med, 372 (2015), pp. 203-205
[4]
C.E. Cook, N.E. O'Connell, T. Hall, S.Z. George, G. Jull, A.A. Wright, et al.
Benefits and threats to using social media for presenting and implementing evidence.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 48 (2018), pp. 3-7
[5]
C. Hopp, G.A. Hoover.
What crisis? Management researchers' experiences with and views of scholarly misconduct.
Sci Eng Ethics, 25 (2019), pp. 1549-1588
[6]
C. Cook.
Predatory Journals: the worst thing in publishing, ever.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 47 (2017), pp. 1-2
[7]
C. Lazarus, R. Haneef, P. Ravaud, S. Hopewell, D.G. Altman, I. Boutron.
Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited.
J Clin Epidemiol, 77 (2016), pp. 44-51
[8]
T.C. Hoffmann, P.P. Glasziou, I. Boutron, R. Milne, R. Perera, D. Moher, et al.
Die TIDieR Checkliste und Anleitung - ein Instrument für eine verbesserte Interventionsbeschreibung und Replikation [Better Reporting of Interventions: template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist and Guide].
Gesundheitswesen, 78 (2016), pp. 175-188
[9]
S. Gianola, G. Castellini, D. Corbetta, L. Moja.
Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant.
Health Qual Life Outcomes, 17 (2019), pp. 127
[10]
S. Vazire.
Do we want to be credible or incredible?.
[11]
L.O. Costa, C.W. Lin, D.B. Grossi, M.C. Mancini, A.K. Swisher, C. Cook, et al.
Clinical trial registration in physiotherapy journals: recommendations from the International Society of Physiotherapy Journal Editors.
Physiother Can, 65 (2013), pp. 109-115
[12]
Neuroskeptic.
The nine circles of scientific hell.
Perspect Psychol Sci, 7 (2012), pp. 643-644
[13]
C. Cook, A.N. Garcia.
Post-randomization bias.
J Man Manip Ther, 28 (2020), pp. 69-71
[14]
M.L. Head, L. Holman, R. Lanfear, A.T. Kahn, M.D. Jennions.
The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science.
PLoS Biol, 13 (2015),
[15]
J. Oakhill, P.N. Johnson-Laird, A. Gornham.
Believability and syllogistic reasoning.
Cognition, 31 (1989), pp. 117-140
[16]
Z.S. Morris, S. Wooding, J. Grant.
The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research.
J R Soc Med, 104 (2011), pp. 510-520
[17]
K. Rayson, L. Waddington, D.J. Hare.
The quality of research exploring in-session measures of CBT competence: a systematic review.
Behav Cogn Psychother, (2021), pp. 1-17
[18]
S.C. Adams, J. McMillan, K. Salline, J. Lavery, C.S. Moskowitz, K. Matsoukas, et al.
Comparing the reporting and conduct quality of exercise and pharmacological randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.
[19]
P. Salamh, C. Cook, M.P. Reiman, C. Sheets.
Treatment effectiveness and fidelity of manual therapy to the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Musculoskeletal Care, 15 (2017), pp. 238-248
[20]
J.R. Zadro, G. Ferreira.
Has physical therapists' management of musculoskeletal conditions improved over time?.
Braz J Phys Ther, 24 (2020), pp. 458-462
[21]
J. Zadro, M. O'Keeffe, C. Maher.
Do physical therapists follow evidence-based guidelines when managing musculoskeletal conditions? Systematic review.
[22]
H.C.W. de Vet, C.B. Terwee, L.B. Mokkink, D.L. Knol.
Measurement in Medicine: a Practical Guide.
Cambridge University Press, (2011),
[23]
A. Sharma, N.T. Minh Duc, T. Luu Lam Thang, N.H. Nam, S.J. Ng, K.S. Abbas, et al.
A Consensus-Based checklist for reporting of survey studies (CROSS).
J Gen Intern Med, 36 (2021), pp. 3179-3187
[24]
B.M. Melnyk, E. Fineout-Overholt, M.Z. Mays.
The evidence-based practice beliefs and implementation scales: psychometric properties of two new instruments.
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 5 (2008), pp. 208-216
[25]
D.U. Jette, K. Bacon, C. Batty, M. Carlson, A. Ferland, R.D. Hemingway, et al.
Evidence-based practice: beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of physical therapists.
Phys Ther, 83 (2003), pp. 786-805
[26]
R. Ramírez-Vélez, J.E. Correa-Bautista, D.I. Muñoz-Rodríguez, L. Ramírez, K. González-Ruíz, M.A. Domínguez-Sánchez, et al.
Evidence-based practice: beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and skills among Colombian physical therapists.
Colomb Med, 46 (2015), pp. 33-40
[27]
H. Kang.
Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software.
J Educ Eval Health Prof, 18 (2021), pp. 17
[28]
Y. Dong, C.Y. Peng.
Springer Plus, (2013), pp. 222
[29]
N. Pandis.
Multiple linear regression analysis.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 149 (2016), pp. 581
[30]
M. Krzywinski, N. Altman.
Multiple linear regression.
Nat Methods, 12 (2015), pp. 1103-1104
[31]
S. Riley, B.T. Swanson, S.F. Sawyer, J.M. Brismée, G. Staysniak.
Should low-quality evidence dominate high-level evidence? A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions.
J Man Manip Ther, 29 (2021), pp. 203-215
[32]
S.K. Zhang, Y. Yang, M.L. Gu, S.J. Mao, W.S. Zhou.
Effects of low back pain exercises on pain symptoms and activities of daily living: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Percept Mot Skills, (2021),
[33]
M.G. Mertens, L. Meert, F. Struyf, A. Schwank, M. Meeus.
Exercise therapy is fffective for improvement in range of motion, function, and pain in patients with frozen shoulder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil, (2021),
[34]
Y.H. Zhang, H.Y. Hu, Y.C. Xiong, C. Peng, L. Hu, Y.Z. Kong, et al.
Exercise for neuropathic pain: a systematic review and expert consensus.
Front Med, 8 (2021),
[35]
L. Bonatesta, J.D. Ruiz-Cárdenas, L. Fernández-Azorín, J.J Rodríguez-Juan.
Pain science education plus exercise therapy in chronic nonspecific spinal pain: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials.
J Pain, (2021),
[36]
S. Baez, M.C. Hoch, J.M. Hoch.
Evaluation of cognitive behavioral interventions and psychoeducation implemented by rehabilitation specialists to treat fear-avoidance beliefs in patients with low back pain: a systematic review.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 99 (2018), pp. 2287-2298
[37]
G.P. Bostick.
Effectiveness of psychological interventions delivered by non-psychologists on low back pain and disability: a qualitative systematic review.
Spine J, 17 (2017), pp. 1722-1728
[38]
A.J. Goff, D. De Oliveira Silva, M. Merolli, E.C. Bell, K.M. Crossley, C.J. Barton.
Patient education improves pain and function in people with knee osteoarthritis with better effects when combined with exercise therapy: a systematic review.
J Physiother, 67 (2021), pp. 177-189
[39]
C. McGee, M. Hwu, L.L. Nicholson, K.K.N. Ho.
More than a game: musculoskeletal injuries and a key role for the physical therapist in Esports.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 51 (2021), pp. 415-417
[40]
M.M. Reinold.
Performance physical yherapy is sports physical yherapy: why our profession needs to progress.
Int J Sports Phys Ther, 16 (2021), pp. 21556
[41]
F. Schaafsma, E. Schonstein, K.M. Whelan, E. Ulvestad, D.T. Kenny, J.H. Verbeek.
Physical conditioning programs for improving work outcomes in workers with back pain.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, (2010),
[42]
C.E. Cook.
Die Dämonisierung der Manuellen Therapie.
MSK – Muskuloskelettale Physiotherapie, 25 (2021), pp. 125-134
[43]
M. Fernandez, C. Moore, J. Tan, et al.
Spinal manipulation for the management of cervicogenic headache: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eur J Pain, 24 (2020), pp. 1687-1702
[44]
L. Falsiroli Maistrello, M. Rafanelli, A Turolla.
Manual therapy and quality of life in people with headache: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Curr Pain Headache Rep, 23 (2019), pp. 78
[45]
N.M. Paige, I.M. Miake-Lye, M.S. Booth, J.M. Beroes, A.S. Mardian, P. Dougherty, et al.
Association of spinal manipulative therapy with clinical benefit and harm for acute low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.
JAMA, 317 (2017), pp. 1451-1460
[46]
K.K. Sampath, R. Mani, T. Miyamori, S. Tumilty.
The effects of manual therapy or exercise therapy or both in people with hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clin Rehabil, 30 (2016), pp. 1141-1155
[47]
F.I. Namnaqani, A.S. Mashabi, K.M. Yaseen, M.A. Alshehri.
The effectiveness of McKenzie method compared to manual therapy for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review.
J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact, 19 (2019), pp. 492-499
[48]
C. Cumplido-Trasmonte, P. Fernández-González, I.M. Alguacil-Diego, F Molina-Rueda.
Manual therapy in adults with tension-type headache: a systematic review.
Neurologia (Engl Ed), 36 (2021), pp. 537-547
[49]
G.V. Espí-López, A. Arnal-Gómez, M. Balasch-Bernat, M. Inglés.
Effectiveness of manual therapy combined with physical therapy in treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome: systematic review.
J Chiropr Med, 16 (2017), pp. 139-146
[50]
C. Lozano Lopez, J. Mesa Jimenez, J.L. de La Hoz Aizpurua, J. Pareja Grande.
Fernández de Las Peñas C. Efficacy of manual therapy in the treatment of tension-type headache. A systematic review from 2000 to 2013.
Neurologia, 31 (2016), pp. 357-369
[51]
Q. Xu, B. Chen, Y. Wang, X. Wang, D. Han, D. Ding, et al.
The effectiveness of manual therapy for relieving pain, stiffness, and dysfunction in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Pain Physician, 20 (2017), pp. 229-243
[52]
R. Steuri, M. Sattelmayer, S. Elsig, C. Kolly, A. Tal, J. Taeymans, et al.
Effectiveness of conservative interventions including exercise, manual therapy and medical management in adults with shoulder impingement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
Br J Sports Med, 51 (2017), pp. 1340-1347
[53]
R. Schenk, M. Donaldson, J. Parent-Nichols, M. Wilhelm, A. Wright, J.A Cleland.
Effectiveness of cervicothoracic and thoracic manual physical therapy in managing upper quarter disorders - a systematic review.
J Man Manip Ther, (2021), pp. 1-10
[54]
S. Sbardella, C. La Russa, A. Bernetti, M. Mangone, A. Guarnera, L. Pezzi, et al.
Muscle energy technique in the rehabilitative treatment for acute and chronic non-specific neck pain: a systematic review.
[55]
Low back pain and sciatica in over 16s: assessment and management. NICE guideline [NG59]. Accessed November 19, 2021. Accessed https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng59
[56]
A. Qaseem, R.M. McLean, D. O'Gurek, P. Batur, K. Lin, D.L. Kansagara, et al.
Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults: a clinical guideline from the american college of physicians and american academy of family physicians.
Ann Intern Med, 173 (2020), pp. 739-748
[57]
P.R. Blanpied, A.R. Gross, J.M. Elliott, L.L. Devaney, D. Clewley, D.M. Walton, et al.
Neck Pain: revision 2017.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 47 (2017), pp. A1-A83
[58]
S.S. Pangarkar, D.G. Kang, F. Sandbrink, A. Bevevino, K. Tillisch, L. Konitzer, et al.
VA/DoD clinical practice guideline: diagnosis and treatment of low back pain.
J Gen Intern Med, 34 (2019), pp. 2620-2629
[59]
North American Spine Society: Evidence Based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care. Downloaded October 19, 2021 from:https://www.spine.org/Portals/0/assets/downloads/ResearchClinicalCare/Guidelines/LowBackPain.pdf. [Google Scholar]. 2022
[60]
H.M. Hussein, R.S. Alshammari, S.S. Al-Barak, N.D. Alshammari, S.N. Alajlan, O.W. Althomali.
A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the pain-relieving effect of interferential current on musculoskeletal pain.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil, (2021),
[61]
G. Letizia Mauro, D. Scaturro, F. Gimigliano, M. Paoletta, S. Liguori, G. Toro, et al.
Physical agent modalities in early osteoarthritis: a scoping review.
Medicina, 57 (2021), pp. 1165
[62]
N. Trivedi, M. Krakow, K. Hyatt Hawkins, E.B. Peterson, W.-Y.S Chou.
Well, the message is from the institute of something": exploring source trust of cancer-related messages on simulated Facebook posts.
Front Commun, 5 (2020), pp. 12
[63]
A.M. Petersen, S. Fortunato, R.K. Pan, K. Kaski, O. Penner, A.M. Rungi, et al.
Reputation and impact in academic careers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (2014),
[64]
M.K. Heinemann.
The matthew effect.
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 64 (2016), pp. 87
[65]
J.A. Furze, C.J. Tichenor, B.E. Fisher, G.M. Jensen, M.J. Rapport.
Physical therapy residency and fellowship education: reflections on the past, present, and future.
Phys Ther, 96 (2016), pp. 949-960
[66]
J. Rodeghero, Y.C. Wang, T. Flynn, J.A. Cleland, R.S. Wainner, J.M. Whitman.
The impact of physical therapy residency or fellowship education on clinical outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal conditions.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 45 (2015), pp. 86-96
[67]
J.M. Whitman, J.M. Fritz, J.D. Childs.
The influence of experience and specialty certifications on clinical outcomes for patients with low back pain treated within a standardized physical therapy management program.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 34 (2004), pp. 662-672
[68]
L. Resnik, D.L. Hart.
Using clinical outcomes to identify expert physical therapists.
Phys Ther, 83 (2003), pp. 990-1002
[69]
L. Bonatesta, J.D. Ruiz-Cárdenas, L. Fernández-Azorín, J.J Rodríguez-Juan.
Pain science education plus exercise therapy in chronic nonspecific spinal pain: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials.
J Pain, (2021),
[70]
M.T. Minen, K. Kaplan, S. Akter, M. Espinosa-Polanco, J. Guiracocha, D. Khanns, et al.
Neuroscience education as therapy for migraine and overlapping pain conditions: a scoping review.
Pain Med, 22 (2021), pp. 2366-2383
[71]
B. Siddall, A. Ram, M.D. Jones, J. Booth, D. Perriman, S.J. Summers.
Short-term impact of combining pain neuroscience education with exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Copyright © 2022. Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia
Idiomas
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
Article options
Tools
en pt
Cookies policy Política de cookies
To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.