TY - JOUR
T1 - Physical Therapists and Physicians Evaluate Nonarthritic Hip Disease Differently
T2 - Results from a National Survey
AU - Brown-Taylor, Lindsey
AU - Lynch, Andrew
AU - Foraker, Randi
AU - Harris-Hayes, Marcie
AU - Walrod, Bryant
AU - Vasileff, W. Kelton
AU - Glaws, Kathryn
AU - Di Stasi, Stephanie
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported in part by a Promotional of Doctoral Studies Level I Scholarship from the Foundation for Physical Therapy Research. Research reported in this publication was supported, in part, by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (award no. TL1TR002735) and the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (award no. F30HD094520). The authors also acknowledge The Ohio State University Center for Clinical and Translational Science grant support (National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, grant nos. 8UL1TR000090-05, KL2TR002734, TL1TR002735, UL1TR002733) for REDCap support related to this project. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Physical Therapy Association.
PY - 2020/6/23
Y1 - 2020/6/23
N2 - Background: Physical therapy and surgery are viable treatment options for nonarthritic hip disease (NAHD). Interdisciplinary collaboration can help patients make informed treatment decisions. Understanding how each provider can contribute is a critical first step in developing collaborative evaluation efforts. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the current evaluation of NAHD by both physical therapists and physicians, and evaluate national use of expert-recommended evaluation guidelines. Design: A national survey study distributed in the United States was implemented to accomplish the objective. Methods: A survey was distributed to 25,027 potential physical therapist and physician respondents. Respondents detailed their evaluation content for patients with NAHD across the following domains: Patient-reported outcomes, patient history, special tests, movement assessment, clinical tests, and imaging. Respondents ranked importance of each domain using a 5-point Likert scale (not important, slightly important, important, very important, or extremely important). Odds ratios (ORs [95% CIs]) were calculated to identify the odds that physical therapists, compared with physicians, would report each evaluation domain as at least very important. Fisher exact tests were performed to identify statistically significant ORs. Results: Nine hundred and fourteen participants (3.6%) completed the survey. Physical therapists were more likely to indicate movement assessment (OR: 4.23 [2.99-6.02]) and patient-reported outcomes (OR: 2.56 [1.67-3.99]) as at least very important for determining a diagnosis and plan of care. Physical therapists had lower odds of rating imaging (OR: 0.09 [0.06-0.14]) and special tests (OR: 0.72 [0.53-0.98]) as at least very important compared with physicians. Limitations: This survey study did not include many orthopedic surgeons and thus, primarily represents evaluation practices of physical therapists and nonsurgical physicians. Conclusions: Physical therapists were more likely to consider movement assessment very important for the evaluation of patients with NAHD, whereas physicians were more likely to consider imaging and special testing very important.
AB - Background: Physical therapy and surgery are viable treatment options for nonarthritic hip disease (NAHD). Interdisciplinary collaboration can help patients make informed treatment decisions. Understanding how each provider can contribute is a critical first step in developing collaborative evaluation efforts. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the current evaluation of NAHD by both physical therapists and physicians, and evaluate national use of expert-recommended evaluation guidelines. Design: A national survey study distributed in the United States was implemented to accomplish the objective. Methods: A survey was distributed to 25,027 potential physical therapist and physician respondents. Respondents detailed their evaluation content for patients with NAHD across the following domains: Patient-reported outcomes, patient history, special tests, movement assessment, clinical tests, and imaging. Respondents ranked importance of each domain using a 5-point Likert scale (not important, slightly important, important, very important, or extremely important). Odds ratios (ORs [95% CIs]) were calculated to identify the odds that physical therapists, compared with physicians, would report each evaluation domain as at least very important. Fisher exact tests were performed to identify statistically significant ORs. Results: Nine hundred and fourteen participants (3.6%) completed the survey. Physical therapists were more likely to indicate movement assessment (OR: 4.23 [2.99-6.02]) and patient-reported outcomes (OR: 2.56 [1.67-3.99]) as at least very important for determining a diagnosis and plan of care. Physical therapists had lower odds of rating imaging (OR: 0.09 [0.06-0.14]) and special tests (OR: 0.72 [0.53-0.98]) as at least very important compared with physicians. Limitations: This survey study did not include many orthopedic surgeons and thus, primarily represents evaluation practices of physical therapists and nonsurgical physicians. Conclusions: Physical therapists were more likely to consider movement assessment very important for the evaluation of patients with NAHD, whereas physicians were more likely to consider imaging and special testing very important.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85087110479&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/ptj/pzaa028
DO - 10.1093/ptj/pzaa028
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32128572
AN - SCOPUS:85087110479
SN - 0031-9023
VL - 100
SP - 917
EP - 932
JO - Physical therapy
JF - Physical therapy
IS - 6
ER -