Physiotherapy Practice and Research - Volume 42, issue 1
Purchase individual online access for 1 year to this journal.
Price: EUR 35.00
Physiotherapy Practice and Research is the Official Journal of
The Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists. It is an international, peer-reviewed journal which aims to advance physiotherapy practice and research through scholarly publication. The journal has a clinical focus and publishes material that will improve the evidence base for physiotherapy and assist physiotherapists in the management of their patients. Contemporary physiotherapy practice incorporates a diverse range of activity and the journal aims to support physiotherapists, and publish material, fromall areas of practice, be that the clinical setting, education, research or management.
Physiotherapy Practice and Research welcomes submissions in the form of original research papers, critical reviews (systematic or state-of-the-art papers), case studies, editorials, expert commentaries and book reviews. Letters to the editor are also welcome. The journal will commission focussed or clinical reviews in areas of interest; those planning such reviews should contact the editor in the first instance. Physiotherapy Practice and Research also aims to foster research capacity within the Profession and as such supports and encourages submission from new researchers.
Physiotherapy Practice and Research is a member of and subscribes to the principles of COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: People living with Parkinson’s disease (PD) are less active than healthy individuals. Ehealth is an emerging concept in healthcare which presents opportunities to promote physical activity (PA) in people with PD. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the effectiveness of ehealth in the promotion of PA in people living with PD. METHODS: Suitable articles were searched for using EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science and OVID Medline databases using a combination of keywords and medical subject headings. Articles were included if they described an ehealth intervention designed to promote PA in people living with PD.…Two reviewers screened studies for suitability and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the Downs and Black risk of bias checklist. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, a narrative synthesis of study interventions and results was completed rather than a quantitative analysis. RESULTS: 1449 articles were screened. Four studies met the eligibility criteria which included 652 participants. Web and mobile applications were used to design the PA interventions. PA levels were measured using self-reported questionnaires, Fitbits, activity monitors and accelerometers. Three of the studies reported improvements in aspects of PA. However, this was not consistently reported in all study participants. No adverse effects, a high level of enjoyment and a relatively low attrition rate (∼12.5%) were reported. CONCLUSION: Ehealth is a safe and feasible intervention to promote PA in this population. It is unclear whether ehealth is effective at promoting PA in people with PD.
Keywords: Ehealth, Parkinson’s disease, physical activity, health promotion
Abstract: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Physiotherapy is a key discipline in stroke rehabilitation. Physiotherapists sometimes select interventions following personal preference rather than a scientific rational. Data on physiotherapy approaches used in stroke rehabilitation may help policy makers and educators to plan education strategies and implement efficient clinical practices, thus improving rehabilitation effectiveness. We aimed to develop and test a questionnaire designed to survey physiotherapy interventions utilized in stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: We used a multistep questionnaire development method (literature review and synthesis; questionnaire drafting; expert validation; cognitive interviewing). Afterwards the survey proceeded to reliability testing; the outcomes of interest were completion…time, estimated comprehensiveness of the lists of interventions, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Retrieved survey tools, their items, and a taxonomy were useful for the questionnaire development. We interviewed four experts; changes were made to the survey following their suggestions. Thirteen physiotherapists participated in cognitive interviewing and further changes were made. Thirty-five raters participated in the test-retest study. Most participants considered the list of physiotherapy interventions and assistive device exhaustive. Median compilation time and time interval between the two compilations were 7 minutes and 21 days. The observed ICC was 0.844 (95% confidence interval, 0.829/0.857). Our method provided a valid and reliable questionnaire, however further methodological considerations of sampling methods and contact delivery modes are needed. CONCLUSIONS: If adequately implemented, the questionnaire can provide information about interventions utilized in stroke rehabilitation practice by physiotherapists. Data eventually acquired could be useful for planning educational strategies and implementing effective clinical practices.