Experiences and attitudes toward scientific research among physiotherapists in Austria: a cross-sectional online survey.

INTRODUCTION: Research is important for the development of physiotherapy practice, but several countries have a rather short history of physiotherapy as an academic profession. PURPOSE: This study investigated physiotherapists' experiences and attitudes toward scientific research in Austria, where physiotherapists have only been qualifying at bachelor level since 2009. METHODS: A convenience sample of 597 qualified physiotherapists completed an anonymous cross-sectional online survey. RESULTS: Most respondents were female (n = 467, 78.2%) and in age groups between: 26-35 years (n = 149, 25.0%); 36-45 years (n = 178, 29.8%); and 46-55 years (n = 173, 29.0%). Seventeen respondents (2.8%) held doctoral degrees, and 61 (10.2%) had substantial research experience beyond undergraduate or master-level student research. More positive research attitudes were observed in participants who were male, younger, without children, had completed their physiotherapy qualification since 2009, were engaged in teaching and education, and held postgraduate degrees. Most frequently reported barriers and/or enabling factors for physiotherapy research were time, training, finances and a "critical mass" of research activity. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight low levels of research activity among physiotherapists in Austria, despite general appreciation of the importance of research for the profession. The identified attitudinal profiles, barriers, and facilitators may inform initiatives for advancing physiotherapy research in the Austrian context.

Physiotherapists' job satisfaction according to employment situation: Findings from an online survey in Austria.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Physiotherapists are commonly working in self-employed, employed, or in combined employed and self-employed work arrangements. This study aimed at examining aspects of job satisfaction and predictors of physiotherapists' overall job satisfaction across those three types of work arrangements. METHODS: Austrian physiotherapists rated their overall job satisfaction as well as the importance and realisation of aspects of job satisfaction in a cross-sectional online survey. Multiple linear regression was used to identify predictors of overall job satisfaction, and (for employed therapists only) predictors for planning to change the employer. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 581 physiotherapists working in the public or private sector, of which, 342 were self-employed, 100 employed, and 139 both employed and self-employed. Physiotherapists generally indicated high job satisfaction with notable variations according to their work arrangements. Overall job satisfaction and the aspects of recognition and autonomy were higher in self-employed therapists, when compared to the other two groups. In contrast, self-employed therapists reported lower satisfaction with mentoring and peer support. Those who were both employed and self-employed reported the highest gap between the importance and realisation of their work-life balance (r = -0.50, p < 0.001). Recognition was identified as the most important predictor of job satisfaction (ß = 0.52, p < 0.001) and intention to leave (ß = -0.54, p < 0.001) in employed physiotherapists. DISCUSSION: The analysis of job satisfaction according to work arrangements suggests several approaches to increase or maintain a high level of job satisfaction, which may be addressed by employers and physiotherapy professional organisations. For employed physiotherapists, practices that increase their recognition and autonomy seem to be promising, whereas self-employed physiotherapists could benefit from enhanced opportunities for exchange and networking with colleagues. For those who are both employed and self-employed, more flexible work schedules may be helpful to integrate the demands of private patients and employer workloads.

Functional consultation and exercises improve grip strength in osteoarthritis of the hand - a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in hand osteoarthritis is promising but still scarce. Combined interventions are most likely to best cover the clinical needs of patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a combined, interdisciplinary intervention feasible in both primary and specialist care compared to routine care plus placebo in patients with hand OA. METHODS: This was a randomised, controlled 2-month trial with a blinded assessor. In the combined-intervention group, rheumatology-trained health professionals from different disciplines delivered a one-session individual intervention with detailed information on functioning, activities of daily living, physical activity, nutrition, assistive devices, instructions on pain management and exercises. Telephone follow up was performed after 4 weeks. The primary outcome was grip strength after 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes were self-reported pain, satisfaction with treatment, health status, two of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function subtests and the total score of the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN). Statistical significance was calculated by Student's t test or the Mann-Whitney U test depending on data distribution. Binominal logistic regression models were fitted, with the primary outcome being the dependent and the group allocation being the independent variable. RESULTS: There were 151 participating patients (74 in the combined-intervention and 77 in the routine-care-plus-placebo group) with 2-month follow-up attendance of 84% (n = 128). Grip strength significantly increased in the combined-intervention group and decreased in the routine-care group (dominant hand, mean 0.03 bar (SD 0.11) versus - 0.03 (SD 0.13), p value = 0.001, baseline corrected values) after 8 weeks. CONCLUSION: The combined one-session individual intervention significantly improved grip strength and self-reported satisfaction with treatment in patients with hand OA. It can be delivered by different rheumatology-trained health professionals and is thus also feasible in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN62513257 . Registered on 17 May 2012.

Similar problem in the activities of daily living but different experience: a qualitative analysis in six rheumatic conditions and eight European countries.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare and contrast the concepts of functioning in daily life which were important to patients with different rheumatological conditions. METHOD: The study comprised a qualitative analysis of 44 focus groups in eight European countries, in 229 patients with fibromyalgia, hand osteoarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis, using the World Health Organization, 2001 International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a framework. Concepts and - where necessary - also sub-concepts and transcripts were combined and compared independently by two researchers who, in case of disagreement, achieved consensus through discussion. RESULTS: Twenty concepts out of 109 (e.g. body image, fatigue, emotional issues, mobility and hand function) were similarly described in all six diseases. However, even if the same concept was mentioned, patients' experiences were different, such as mental AND physical aspects limiting the ability to drive in patients with fibromyalgia compared with ONLY physical problems in all other diseases. Within body functions and structures, several concepts were relevant for certain conditions only. CONCLUSION: A large number of similar problems are mentioned as 'typical' by patients with different rheumatic conditions. These could probably be targeted, using a disease-specific approach, in interventions by non-physician health professionals.