Goal setting is a core component of physical therapy in multiple sclerosis (MS). It is unknown whether and to what extent goals are set at different levels of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and whether, and to which, standardized outcome measures are used in real life for evaluation at the different ICF levels. Our aim was to describe the real-world use of goal setting and outcome measures in Europe. An online cross-sectional survey, completed by 212 physical therapists (PTs) specialized in MS from 26 European countries, was conducted. Differences between European regions and relationships between goals and assessments were analyzed. PTs regularly set goals, but did not always apply the Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timed (SMART) criteria. Regions did not differ in the range of activities assessed, but in goals set (e.g., Western and Northern regions set significantly more goals regarding leisure and work) and outcome measures used (e.g., the Berg Balance Scale was more frequently used in Northern regions). Quality of life was not routinely assessed, despite being viewed as an important therapy goal. Discrepancies existed both in goal setting and assessment across European regions. ICF assists in understanding these discrepancies and in guiding improved health-care for the future.

• Keywords
• Europe, cluster analysis, goals, international classification of functioning, disability and health, measures, multiple sclerosis, physical therapy, questionnaire survey,
• MeSH
• Goals MeSH
• Outcome Assessment, Health Care MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health * MeSH
• Disability Evaluation MeSH
• Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
• Surveys and Questionnaires MeSH
• Multiple Sclerosis therapy   MeSH
• Physical Therapy Modalities * MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Geographicals
• Europe MeSH

Background: Guidelines and general recommendations are available for multiple sclerosis rehabilitation, but no specific guidance exists for physical therapists. Describing aspects of physical therapy content and delivery in multiple sclerosis and its determinants and analysing whether general recommendations connected with physical therapy are implemented in practice is important for interpreting clinical and research evidence. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey of physical therapists specialized in multiple sclerosis (212 specialists from 26 European countries) was used. Results: There was distinct diversity in service delivery and content across Europe. Perceived accessibility of physical therapy varied from most accessible in the Western region, and least in the Southern region. Sixty-four physical therapists adjusted their approach according to different disability levels, less so in the Eastern region. Duration, frequency and dose of sessions differed between regions, being highest in Southern and Western regions. "Hands on treatment" was the most commonly used therapeutic approach in all apart from the Northern regions, where "word instruction" (providing advice and information) prevailed. Conclusions: The content and delivery of physical therapy differs across Europe. Recommendations concerning access to treatment and adjustment according to disability do not appear to be widely implemented in clinical practice.

• Keywords
• Europe, multiple sclerosis, physical therapy, professional guidelines, questionnaire survey,
• MeSH
• Adult MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Young Adult MeSH
• Delivery of Health Care * statistics & numerical data   MeSH
• Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
• Surveys and Questionnaires MeSH
• Multiple Sclerosis * therapy   MeSH
• Physical Therapy Modalities * MeSH
• Check Tag
• Adult MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Young Adult MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Geographicals
• Europe MeSH