Physiotherapists’ knowledge of and adherence to evidence-based practice guidelines and recommendations for ankle sprains management: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Lateral ankle sprain (LAS) is a common and burdensome injury. However, the quality of its management is scant. Nowadays, physiotherapy management of musculoskeletal diseases seems to be generally not based on research evidence. Studies that investigated the knowledge-to-practice gap in LAS management are yet to be carried out. Therefore, this research investigated physiotherapists’ knowledge of and adherence to LAS Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations. Methods A cross-sectional study based on an online survey structured in three sections. The first section collected demographic data. The second section showed two clinical cases (with positive and negative Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), respectively). The participants indicated which treatments they would adopt to manage them. Participants were classified as ‘following’, ‘partially following’, ‘partially not following’ and ‘not following’ the CPGs and recommendations. In the third section, participants expressed their agreement with different CPG and recommendation statements through a 1-5 Likert scale. Results In total, 483 physiotherapists (age: 34 ± 10; female 38%, male 61.5%, other 0.5%) answered the survey: 85% completed the first two sections, 76% completed all three sections. In a case of acute LAS with negative OAR, 4% of the participants were considered as ‘following’ recommended treatments, 68% as ‘partially following’, 23% as ‘partially not following’, and 5% as ‘not following’. In a case of acute LAS with positive OAR, 37% were considered ‘following’ recommended treatments, 35% as ‘partially following’, and 28% as ‘not following’. In the third section, the consensus was achieved for 73% of the statements. Conclusion This study showed that although there is a good knowledge about first-line recommended treatments, a better use of CPGs and recommendations should be fostered among physiotherapists. Our results identify an evidence-to-practice gap in LAS management, which may lead to non-evidence-based practice behaviors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 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 teacher head, 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".