Factors affecting Clinical Decision Making for Electrophysical Agents (EPAs) Usage
Clinical Decision Making for Electrophysical Agents (EPAs) Usage
Keywords:
availability, decision making, physical modalities, physical therapy, usageAbstract
Electrophysical agents (EPAs) are core part of professional physical therapy and increases in the new modalities over time. This study aimed to investigate availability, frequency of usage and factors on decision for EPAs usage by physical therapists (PTs) at Health Region 2, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand with electronic questionnaires. Questionnaires were randomly sent to PTs working at 58 hospitals. A total of 151/221 (68%) questionnaires were returned. Frequency, percentage and correlation coefficient were used to describe. The ultrasonic therapy machine and hydrocollator unit were the highest both availability and frequency of usage. Decision making regarding the usage of EPAs was found to be multiple factors especially, internal factors. The pathology knowledge, electrophysical agent knowledge and past clinical experience were important internal factors affecting the use of EPAs application and found significant positive relationship between internal factors. The external factors that influence the decision to use EPAs were the availability of EPAs and research to support the use of treatment. In conclusion, Thai PTs are likely to make decisions of the EPAs usage which are strongly impacted by knowledge, clinical experience, available equipment and research evidence factors
References
2. Belanger AY, editor. Therapeutic electrophysical agents: evidence based behind practice. 2nd ed. New York City, New York State, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2010.
3. Notification of the Ministry of Public Health. Electrophysical agents of physical therapy. B.E. 2549 (A.D. 2006). [n.d.] [cited 2019 Feb 25]. Available from: http://pt.or.th/PT Council/law/6/2.pdf
4. Cameron MH. Physical agents in rehabilitation: an evidence-based approach to practice. 5th ed. St. Louis, Missouri State, USA: Elsevier; 2018.
5. Allen RJ. Physical agents used in the management of chronic pain by physical therapists. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2006;17(2):315-45.
6. Abe Y, Goh AC, Miyoshi K. Availability, usage, and factors affecting usage of electrophysical agents by physical therapists: a regional cross-sectional survey. J Phys Ther Sci 2016;28(11):3088-94.
7. Springer S, Laufer Y, Elboim-Gabyzon M. Clinical decision making for using electrophysical agents by physiotherapists, an Israeli survey. Isr J Health Policy Res 2015;4(14):1-6.
8. Chipchase LS, Williams MT, Robertson VJ. A national study of the availability and use of electrophysical agents by Australian physiotherapists. Physiother Theory Pract 2009;25(4):279-96.
9. Rane S, Yardi S. Use and ownership of electrophysical agents among Indian physiotherapists. Int J Sci Res Educ 2014;2:992-1018.
10. Taylor E, Humphry R. Survey of physical agent modality use. Am J Occup Ther 1991;45(10):924-31.
11. Health Region 2, Ministry of Public Health. General information of Health Region 2 [database on the Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Oct 1]. Available from: http://www.rh2.go.th/www/ about.php?MsID=27
12. Kim GJ, Choi J, Lee S, Jeon C, Lee K. The effects of high intensity laser therapy on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Phys Ther Sci 2016;28(11):3197-9.
13. Elshiwi AM, Hamada HA, Mosaad D, Ragab IMA, Koura GM, Alrawaili SM. Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field on non-specific low back pain patients: a randomized controlled trial. Braz J Phys Ther 2019;23(3):244-9.
14. GIS Health Information System (GIS health) [database on the Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Mar 10]. Available from: http://gishealth.moph.go.th/healthmap/gmap.php#result
15. Srisatidnarakul B. Development and validation of research instruments: psychometric properties. Bangkok, Thailand:Chulapress; 2012. (in Thai)
16. Pasunon P. Reliability of questionnaire in quantitative research. PRCJ 2014;27(1):144-63. (In Thai)
17. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 2012;24(3):69-71.
18. Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assess Eval High Educ 2008;33(3):301-14.
19. Shah SGS, Farrow A, Esnouf A. Availability and use of electrotherapy devices: a survey. Int J Ther Rehabil 2007;14:206-64.
20. Lindsay DM, Dearness J, McGinley CC. Electrotherapy usage trends in private physiotherapy practice in Alberta. Physiother Can 1995;47(1):30-4.
21. Taechasubamorn P, Nopkesorn T, Pannarunothai S. Prevalence of low back pain among rice farmers in a rural community in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai 2011;94(5):616-21.
22. Lindsay D, Dearness J, Richardson C, Chapman A, Cuskelly G. A survey of electromodality usage in private physiotherapy practices. Aust J Physiother 1990;36(4):249-56.
23. Dijkers MP, Murphy SL, Krellman J. Evidence-based practice for rehabilitation professionals: concepts and controversies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93(8 Suppl):164-76.
