Physiotherapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis across Europe: Regions and other factors that matter
Language English Country Netherlands Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article
PubMed
29579644
DOI
10.1016/j.msard.2018.03.005
PII: S2211-0348(18)30093-2
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Cluster analysis, Europe, Multiple sclerosis, Physical therapy, Physiotherapeutic interventions, Questionnaire survey,
- MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
- Regression Analysis MeSH
- Multiple Sclerosis therapy MeSH
- Cluster Analysis MeSH
- Physical Therapy Modalities * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Geographicals
- Europe MeSH
BACKGROUND: A wide variety of interventions exists in physical therapy (PT), but knowledge about their use across different geographical regions is limited. This study investigated the use of PT interventions in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) across Europe. It aimed to determine whether regions differ in applying interventions, and explore whether factors other than regions play a role in their use. METHODS: In an online cross-sectional survey, 212 respondents from 115 European workplaces providing PT services to people with MS representing 26 countries (four European regions) participated. Cluster analysis, Pearson Chi-squared test and a Poisson regression model were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Thirteen of 45 listed PT interventions were used by more than 75% of centers, while nine interventions were used by less than 25%. For 12 interventions, regions differed markedly in their use. Cluster analysis of centers identified four clusters similar in their intervention use. Cluster assignment did not fully align with regions. While center region was important, center size, number and gender of physical therapists working in the center, and time since qualification also played a role. Cluster analysis exploring the use of the interventions provided the basis for a categorization of PT interventions in line with their primary focus: 1. Physical activity (fitness/endurance/resistance) training; 2. Neuroproprioceptive "facilitation/inhibition"; 3. Motor/skill acquisition (individualized therapy led); 4. Technology based interventions. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge this is the first study that has explored this topic in MS. The results broaden our understanding of the different PT interventions used in MS, as well as the context of their use.
Don Gnocchi Foundation IRCCS Milan Larice Lab Via Capecelatro 66 20148 Milan Italy
Don Gnocchi Foundation Larice Lab IRCCS Milan Via Capecelatro 66 20148 Milan Italy
Faculty Health and Human Sciences Plymouth University Devon PL68BH United Kingdom
Fit Up Fitness and Physiotherapy Center Mechelsesteen weg 192a 2550 Kontich Belgium
Masku Neurological Rehabilitation Centre Physiotherapy Vaihemäentie 10 PO Box 15 21251 Masku Finland
Nevrologgruppen Oslo Lillegrensen 7 N 0159 Oslo Norway
University of West Attica Athens 24 Mitrodorou street 10441 Ak Pratonos Athens Greece
References provided by Crossref.org
Quality of life and quality of education among physiotherapy students in Europe
Content and Delivery of Physical Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis across Europe: A Survey