Scientific approach and attitudes among clinically working physiotherapists in Sweden -a cross sectional survey.
Frida Eek, Pernilla Åsenlöf, Kjerstin Stigmar
PMID 37807048WHAT IT FOUND
Swedish physiotherapists rated scientific evidence as their top guide for treatment, yet most felt general practice ignores it.
Lack of time was the biggest barrier. Specialists read more papers and felt more skilled at interpreting statistics than non-specialists.
Key findings
01Scientific evidence was ranked as the highest priority for clinical decision-making, above own clinical experience, treatment protocols, education, and patient preferences.
02While 91.5% considered a scientific approach important for quality, 60.9% believed Swedish physiotherapy practice generally relies on it only to a moderate, low, or non-existent degree.
03Specialists read a median of 3 papers per month compared to 1 for non-specialists, and reported significantly higher ability to interpret statistical results.
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.
What it does not show
The response rate was approximately 7% of the association's members, indicating a high risk of non-response bias where those already interested in science were more likely to participate. The sample over-represented specialists compared to the general population of Swedish physiotherapists. The survey tool was created for this study and was not tested for reliability or validity. Results rely on self-reported perceptions of ability, which may not align with actual skill levels. The cross-sectional design cannot determine if specialist training causes better research skills or if those with better skills seek out specialist training.
Declared interests
The study was funded by Lund University. The authors declared no other conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume these findings reflect the average physiotherapist's behavior or skill level. The low response rate and over-representation of specialists suggest the results likely overestimate interest in science and research competence across the profession.