PTSurveyThe South African journal of physiotherapy2020

Current knowledge of idiopathic scoliosis among practising physiotherapists in South Africa.

Abraham du Toit, Nassib Tawa, Dominique C Leibbrandt and 2 others

PMID 33241160

WHAT IT FOUND

South African physiotherapists showed gaps in idiopathic scoliosis knowledge, especially diagnosis, prevalence, bracing, and exercise methods.

Most were not confident using Adam's forward bend test or a scoliometer, so first-contact screening may be missed.

Key findings

01Most participants were unsure about prevalence and about which conservative treatment methods they were familiar with.

02Most respondents were not confident or unsure about using Adam's forward bend test and a scoliometer.

03Members of the Orthopaedic Manipulative Physiotherapy Group answered definition and diagnosis better, but both groups were poor on conservative treatment.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The sample was not random; it was drawn from OMPTG members and non-OMPTG physiotherapists who expressed interest in orthopaedic and musculoskeletal physiotherapy, so it may not represent all South African physiotherapists. Responses were self-reported through an online questionnaire, and participants had time to look up answers. Only physiotherapists interested in the topic may have completed it, so the sample could be more knowledgeable than average. The survey measured answers to 15 multiple-choice questions and confidence questions, not observed clinical skill or patient outcomes. It gives an overview of knowledge, not an in-depth assessment.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that all South African physiotherapists are unable to manage scoliosis. This was a self-selected online survey of physiotherapists interested in orthopaedics, so it describes respondents' answers, not all practitioners' competence.

Read it on PubMed →