Content and Delivery of Physical Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis across Europe: A Survey

Kamila Řasová, Jenny Freeman, Davide Cattaneo, Johanna Jonsdottir, Ilse Baert, Tori Smedal, Anders Romberg, Peter Feys, Jose Alves-Guerreiro, Mario Habek, Thomas Henze, Carme Santoyo-Medina, Antonie Beiske, Paul Van Asch, Daphne Bakalidou, Yeliz Salcı, Erieta Dimitrova, Markéta Pavlíková, Ivana Štětkářová, Jana Vorlíčková and Patricia Martinková
Additional contact information
Kamila Řasová: Department of Rehabilitation, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruská 87, 108 00 Prague, Czech Republic
Jenny Freeman: Faculty of Health: Medicine, Dentistry and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Devon PL6 8BH, UK
Davide Cattaneo: IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Larice Lab, P20148 Milan, Italy
Johanna Jonsdottir: IRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Larice Lab, P20148 Milan, Italy
Ilse Baert: Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences REVAL Rehabilitation Research Center REVAL, BIOMED, Hasselt University, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium
Tori Smedal: Norwegian Multiple Sclerosis Competence Centre, Department of Neurology, and Department of Physiotherapy, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021 Bergen, Norway
Anders Romberg: Physiotherapy, Masku Neurological Rehabilitation Centre, 21250 Masku, Finland
Peter Feys: Campus Diepenbeek, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, REVAL Rehabilitation Research center REVAL, BIOMED, Hasselt University, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium
Jose Alves-Guerreiro: School of Health Sciences, Health Research Unit, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Campus 2-Morro do Lena-Alto do Vieiro, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal
Mario Habek: Department of Neurology, Referral Center for Autonomic Nervous System, University Hospital Center Zagreb, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Kispaticeva, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Thomas Henze: Specialist Practice in Neurology, 93059 Regensburg, Germany
Carme Santoyo-Medina: Neurology-Neuroimmunology Department & Neurorehabilitation Unit, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat), Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain
Antonie Beiske: Nevrologgruppen Oslo, 0159 Oslo, Norway
Paul Van Asch: Fit Up, Fitness- and Physiotherapy Center, 2550 Kontich, Belgium
Daphne Bakalidou: Department of physiotherapy, University of West Attica, Egaleo, 12243 Athens, Greece
Yeliz Salcı: Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, Hacettepe University, 06100 Ankara, Turkey
Erieta Dimitrova: Department for Rehabilitation of Musculoskeletal Disorders, Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, “Ss. Cyril and Methodius” University, 1000 Skopje, Macedonia
Markéta Pavlíková: Department of Rehabilitation, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruská 87, 108 00 Prague, Czech Republic
Ivana Štětkářová: Department of Neurology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, 100 34 Prague, Czech Republic
Jana Vorlíčková: Department of Statistical Modelling, Institute of Computer Science, Czech Academy of Sciences,18207 Prague, Czech Republic
Patricia Martinková: Department of Statistical Modelling, Institute of Computer Science, Czech Academy of Sciences,18207 Prague, Czech Republic

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 3, 1-13

Abstract: Background: Guidelines and general recommendations are available for multiple sclerosis rehabilitation, but no specific guidance exists for physical therapists. Describing aspects of physical therapy content and delivery in multiple sclerosis and its determinants and analysing whether general recommendations connected with physical therapy are implemented in practice is important for interpreting clinical and research evidence. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey of physical therapists specialized in multiple sclerosis (212 specialists from 26 European countries) was used. Results : There was distinct diversity in service delivery and content across Europe. Perceived accessibility of physical therapy varied from most accessible in the Western region, and least in the Southern region. Sixty-four physical therapists adjusted their approach according to different disability levels, less so in the Eastern region. Duration, frequency and dose of sessions differed between regions, being highest in Southern and Western regions. “Hands on treatment” was the most commonly used therapeutic approach in all apart from the Northern regions, where “word instruction” (providing advice and information) prevailed. Conclusions: The content and delivery of physical therapy differs across Europe. Recommendations concerning access to treatment and adjustment according to disability do not appear to be widely implemented in clinical practice.

Keywords: multiple sclerosis; physical therapy; Europe; questionnaire survey; professional guidelines (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/886/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/3/886/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:3:p:886-:d:314755

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().