Evidence‐based practice in physical therapy in <scp>A</scp>ustria: current state and factors associated with <scp>EBP</scp> engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Research examining the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) in physical therapy in many countries has revealed positive attitudes, varying degrees of EBP use and barriers at practitioner, patient and organizational levels. In contrast to these countries, Austria does not have an academic or research tradition in physical therapy. Engagement in EBP in countries such as Austria is unknown. The objectives of the study were to describe the current state of EBP engagement and identify factors associated with EBP engagement among Austrian physical therapists (PTs). METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted. Existing questionnaires and the theory of planned behaviour guided questionnaire development. Face and content validity and ease of use of the questionnaire were evaluated in pilot tests. Item-level response frequencies and percentages were determined. Simple and multiple regressions were used to identify factors associated with EBP engagement. RESULTS: The final sample size was 588 (response rate: 17.5%). Ten percent of participants fully agreed that they regularly use guidelines and standardized assessment tools in clinical practice. While 49.9% reported not using electronic databases for literature searching, 41.9% reported reading research articles 2-5 times per month. Most frequently cited barriers to EBP engagement were lack of scientific skills, lack of time and insufficient organizational support. Research awareness, attitude, behavioural control, involvement in research and degree level were final correlates of EBP engagement. CONCLUSION: Austrian PTs show a low level of engagement in EBP. Initiatives to advance EBP in Austria and other countries with no academic or research tradition should primarily target practitioner-level factors.
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 | 0.019 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".