Physical Therapists' adoption of the Lumbopelvic Manipulation Clinical Prediction Rule and Lumbopelvic Manipulation following a multi-component training program

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorBannan, Brenda
dc.contributor.authorOrtel, Jesse
dc.creatorOrtel, Jesse
dc.date.accessioned2013-08-19T21:14:48Z
dc.date.available2013-08-19T21:14:48Z
dc.date.issued2013-08
dc.description.abstractLow Back Pain is a common and costly condition in the United States. Unfortunately standard management and treatment of low back pain in our healthcare system, including that provided by physical therapists, is less than optimal. Two relatively new innovations in physical therapy have been widely supported in research as effective at improving low back pain; these innovations are the lumbopelvic manipulation clinical prediction rule (LMCPR) and lumbopelvic manipulation (LM). Despite their proven effectiveness, these innovations have not been widely adopted by physical therapists. Knowing why physical therapists are adopting or not adopting the LMCPR and LM could provide insights that may lead to more targeted and effective training interventions that increase adoption. This mixed methods study followed 10 outpatient orthopedic physical therapists' over a twelve week period to look at their process of adoption of the LMCPR and LM following a multi-component training program on those topics. The results confirmed low adoption rates of the two innovations after prior training, and favorable perceptions and high self-reported adoption rates of both innovations following this study's multi-component training program. Most importantly, looking at the adoption process revealed common facilitating factors related to training design (e.g. post-training support), trainee characteristics (e.g. feeling accountable to try and/or adopt the innovations), and work environment (e.g. attending training with co-workers). The most important adoption barriers were related to trainee characteristics (e.g. use of non-LMCPR criteria (i.e. screening criteria) when making clinical decisions), and work environment factors (e.g. limited use opportunities). Future LMCPR and LM training programs that address the common facilitators and barriers identified in this study, may result in higher levels of adoption into practice.
dc.format.extent415 pages
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1920/8335
dc.language.isoen
dc.rightsCopyright 2013 Jesse Ortel
dc.subjectEducation
dc.subjectPhysical therapy
dc.subjectDesign
dc.subjectAdoption of new skills
dc.subjectDesign based research
dc.subjectLumbopelvic manipulation
dc.subjectLumbopelvic manipulation clinical prediction rule
dc.subjectPhysical therapists training
dc.subjectTraining transfer
dc.titlePhysical Therapists' adoption of the Lumbopelvic Manipulation Clinical Prediction Rule and Lumbopelvic Manipulation following a multi-component training program
dc.typeDissertation
thesis.degree.disciplineEducation
thesis.degree.grantorGeorge Mason University
thesis.degree.levelDoctoral

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Ortel_gmu_0883E_10404.pdf
Size:
2.46 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

College of Education and Human Development