Evidence-Based Practice: Beliefs, Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behaviors of Physical Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Little research has been done regarding the attitudes and behaviors of physical therapists relative to the use of evidence in practice. The purposes of this study were to describe the beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of physical therapist members of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) as they relate to evidence-based practice (EBP) and to generate hypotheses about the relationship between these attributes and personal and practice characteristics of the respondents. METHODS: A survey of a random sample of physical therapist members of APTA resulted in a 48.8% return rate and a sample of 488 that was fairly representative of the national membership. Participants completed a questionnaire designed to determine beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors regarding EBP, as well as demographic information about themselves and their practice settings. Responses were summarized for each item, and logistic regression analyses were used to examine relationships among variables. RESULTS: Respondents agreed that the use of evidence in practice was necessary, that the literature was helpful in their practices, and that quality of patient care was better when evidence was used. Training, familiarity with and confidence in search strategies, use of databases, and critical appraisal tended to be associated with younger therapists with fewer years since they were licensed. Seventeen percent of the respondents stated they read fewer than 2 articles in a typical month, and one quarter of the respondents stated they used literature in their clinical decision making less than twice per month. The majority of the respondents had access to online information, although more had access at home than at work. According to the respondents, the primary barrier to implementing EBP was lack of time. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Physical therapists stated they had a positive attitude about EBP and were interested in learning or improving the skills necessary to implement EBP. They noted that they needed to increase the use of evidence in their daily practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".