IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0283860.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring if and how evidence-based practice of occupational and physical therapists evolves over time: A longitudinal mixed methods national study

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Zafar Iqbal
  • Annie Rochette
  • Nancy E Mayo
  • Marie-France Valois
  • André E Bussières
  • Sara Ahmed
  • Richard Debigaré
  • Lori Jean Letts
  • Joy C MacDermid
  • Tatiana Ogourtsova
  • Helene J Polatajko
  • Susan Rappolt
  • Nancy M Salbach
  • Aliki Thomas

Abstract

Background: Occupational therapists (OTs) and physiotherapists (PTs) are expected to provide evidence-based services to individuals living with disabilities. Despite the emphasis on evidence-based practice (EBP) by professional entry-level programs and professional bodies, little is known about their EBP competencies upon entry to practice and over time or what factors impact EBP use. The aim of the study was to measure and understand how EBP evolves over the first three years after graduation among Canadian OTs and PTs, and how individual and organizational factors impact the continuous use of EBP. Methods: A longitudinal, mixed methods sequential explanatory study. We administered a survey questionnaire measuring six EBP constructs (knowledge, attitudes, confidence, resources, use of EBP and evidence-based activities) annually, followed by focus group discussions with a subset of survey participants. We performed group-based trajectory modeling to identify trajectories of EBP over time, and a content analysis of qualitative data guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: Of 1700 graduates in 2016–2017, 257 (response rate = 15%) responded at baseline (T0) (i.e., at graduation), and 83 (retention rate = 32%), 75 (retention rate = 29%), and 74 (retention rate = 29%) participated at time point 1 (T1: one year into practice), time point 2 (T2: two years into practice, and time point 3 (T3: three years into practice) respectively. Group-based trajectory modeling showed four unique group trajectories for the use of EBP. Over 64% of participants (two trajectories) showed a decline in the use of EBP over time. Fifteen practitioners (7 OTs and 8 PTs) participated in the focus group discussions. Personal and peer experiences, client needs and expectations, and availability of resources were perceived to influence EBP the most. Conclusions: Though a decline in EBP may be concerning, it is unclear if this decline is clinically meaningful and whether professional expertise can offset such declines. Stakeholder-concerted efforts towards the common goal of promoting EBP in education, practice and policy are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Zafar Iqbal & Annie Rochette & Nancy E Mayo & Marie-France Valois & André E Bussières & Sara Ahmed & Richard Debigaré & Lori Jean Letts & Joy C MacDermid & Tatiana Ogourtsova & Helene J Polat, 2023. "Exploring if and how evidence-based practice of occupational and physical therapists evolves over time: A longitudinal mixed methods national study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-19, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0283860
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283860
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0283860
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0283860&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0283860?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0283860. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.