Physiotherapists' Evidence-Based Practice profiles by HS-EBP questionnaire in Spain: A cross-sectional normative study

• Published in: PloS one 2022-06, Vol.17 (6), p.e0269460-e0269460
• Main Authors: Fernández-Domínguez, Juan C, De Pedro-Gómez, Joan E, Jiménez-López, Rafael, Romero-Franco, Natalia, Bays Moneo, Ana B, Oliva-Pascual-Vaca, Ángel, Sesé-Abad, Albert
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Attitudes; Biology and Life Sciences; Cluster analysis; Clustering; Evidence-based practice; Health care; Medicine and Health Sciences; People and places; Physical therapists; Physical therapy; Population; Practice; Professional practice; Professionals; Professions; Quantitative psychology; Questionnaires; Research and Analysis Methods; Social Sciences; Sociodemographics; Statistical analysis; Surveys; Training; Training level; Vector quantization
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269460

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is a cost-effective approach for improving the quality of clinical care and implementing only well-tested evidence. Health professions, especially physiotherapy, must embrace EBP principles. This paper presents normative data from the Spanish physiotherapist population using the Health-Sciences Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire and explores EBP clusters/profiles of professionals in practice. An intentional sample of 419 practicing physiotherapists was recruited from the Spanish Professional Council of Physiotherapy. Participants completed a cross-sectional online survey with 60 Likert items (scale 1-10) measuring 5 dimensions: 1) Beliefs and attitudes, 2) Results from literature, 3) Professional practice, 4) Assessment of results, and 5) Barriers and Facilitators. The protocol also included sociodemographic, training, and practice-related contrast variables. Normative data were estimated and tabulated for each dimension and then a K-means clustering procedure was implemented using the contrast variables. Results for normative data showed, in descending order, the following 50th percentile values for the five EBP factors: Beliefs and attitudes (8.25), Professional practice (8.00), Assessment of results (7.42), Results from literature (6.71), and EBP Barriers and Facilitators (5.17); all expressed on a scale of 1 to 10. Academic degree, EBP training level, and work time shared in healthcare activity, research, or teaching activity were all statistically significant for discriminating EBP dimension scores. Finally, six different clusters showed that when EBP level is low, the scores in all dimensions are equally low, and vice-versa. The EBP dimensions "Beliefs and attitudes", "Professional practice", and "Evaluation of results" obtained better normative scores overall than "Search for bibliographic evidence and its inclusion in practice" and especially "Perception of EBP barriers", which had the worst score. Normative data are useful for comparing individual scores and the reference population, and information about clusters will enable appropriate global EBP intervention programs to be designed and implemented.