↓ Skip to main content

Implementation and use of standardized outcome measures by physical therapists in Saudi Arabia: barriers, facilitators and perceptions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementation and use of standardized outcome measures by physical therapists in Saudi Arabia: barriers, facilitators and perceptions
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2693-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tahani N. Al-Muqiren, Einas S. Al-Eisa, Ahmad H. Alghadir, Shahnawaz Anwer

Abstract

The use of standardized outcome measures (SOMs) has been recommended in the physical therapy practice guidelines to improve the patient's management and encourage the evidence based practice. However, the extent of the use of SOMs by physical therapists (PTs) in Saudi Arabia was not investigated. The present study aimed to (1) evaluate the extent of the use of SOMs by PTs in routine daily practice in Saudi Arabia; (2) explore the barriers, facilitators and perceptions in the use of SOMs during physical therapy services; (3) examine the relationship between facility settings and the PTs characteristics and the use of SOMs. The present study used an observational design. A survey based questionnaire used and distributed to 352 PTs who were working in Saudi Arabia and was commonly involved in the management of patients within different clinical settings, either private or public. One-hundred-eighty participants completed the questionnaires (response rate of 51%). One-hundred-eleven (62%) participants indicated that they used SOMs in their practice. The most common barriers to using the SOMs were time-consuming for patients and therapist and difficult to understand the outcome measures by the patients. Those with a Masters degree were 3.5 times more likely to use SOMs compared to PTs with diploma level qualification [Odd Ratio (95% CI) 3.5 (0.9-12.6)]. Participants with a clinical specialty were nearly 3 times more likely to use SOMs than those who do not have a specialty [Odd Ratio (95% CI) 2.9 (1.6-5.5)]. Nearly two-thirds of the participants indicated that they used SOMs in clinical practice. Time-consuming for patient and therapist, difficult to understand the SOMs by the patients were the main perceived barriers. Years of experience, professional degree, and clinical specialty had a high probability of using SOMs. The majority of the participants showed the willingness to use SOMs in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 19%
Student > Master 13 12%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 3 3%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 41 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 32 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Engineering 5 5%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 44 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2023.
All research outputs
#14,070,835
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,932
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,968
of 439,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#71
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.