Variations in 2-Minute Walk Test outcomes for people with lower limb amputation in the outpatient clinic and research settings.

BACKGROUND: This study determined the differences in 2-Minute Walk Test (2MWT) distances between people with lower limb amputations in clinical and research settings and described variations in test administration in various clinical settings. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cross-sectional design. METHODS: The 2MWT for 290 patients with lower limb amputations were obtained from a medium-sized prosthetic company with locations within the central United States. Data on 12 prosthetists' 2MWT administration decisions were obtained from the results of an administrative questionnaire. Patient 2MWT distances were compared with published distances. Multiple regression was used to examine the impact of test settings on 2MWT outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to present prosthetists' variations in test administration. RESULTS: Clinical 2MWT distances were significantly less than distances obtained in a research setting. Clinical facilities reported inconsistent path dimensions and potential obstacles in proximity to the test area. Variations in test administration by prosthetists with respect to path length, instructions, turn marker, and overage measurement may contribute to the differences. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthetists should be aware that comparisons of patients' 2MWT distance in a clinical environment may differ from published results. Although variations in clinical environments are usually nonmodifiable characteristics of the clinical facility, test administration and scoring could be modified.

The influence of a topic-specific, research-based presentation on physical therapists' beliefs and practices regarding evidence-based practice.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an important objective as physical therapists strive for autonomous practice. The most commonly identified barrier to EBP is clinicians' lack of time. Purposes of this study were to determine (1) clinicians' opinions of EBP; (2) whether EBP presentations would influence clinicians' beliefs and practices; and (3) if additional barriers would be identified. METHODS: Twenty-four physical therapists, representing four clinical settings, participated. Each facility selected one presentation topic. Presenations were prepared, then given at each facility. Data were collected from three surveys. RESULTS: The majority of participants agreed that EBP is an essential component of practice. Most reported a willingness to change their practice to be more aligned with research. The top three barriers identified were lack of time, access to publications, and research in specific areas. Most reported gaining new information and integration of the material. CONCLUSIONS: EBP is considered essential by most clinicians, but lack of time is consistently identified as a primary barrier. Clinicians found it helpful to have EB information presented to them. Many would welcome additional presentations. Clinicians may increase their use of EBP if the barrier "lack of time" is lessened by locating, synthesizing, and presenting this information to them.