著者
Takashi Ariie Masami Nakahara Masaharu Morita
出版者
The Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine
雑誌
Progress in Rehabilitation Medicine (ISSN:24321354)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.6, pp.20210005, 2021 (Released:2021-01-27)
参考文献数
24

Objectives : The aim of the study was to understand the physical therapist’s experience and perception of the support they give to their older patients or clients to continue exercising.Methods : Using purposive sampling, we recruited fifteen physical therapists with more than 5 years of clinical experience and conducted semi-structured interviews. We analyzed the transcribed data using thematic analysis.Results : Three main themes emerged: (1) the expected results as healthcare professionals, (2) clinical experience and continuing professional development, and (3) limited educational opportunities. Physical therapists struggled to achieve a certain level of exercise adherence in their patients, and the low success rate decreased their confidence. We found that physical therapists needed not only to rely on clinical experience but also to integrate scientific evidence to implement better behavioral change techniques; they would also appreciate receiving appropriate educational opportunities.Conclusions : This study revealed a possibility of educational insufficiency for physical therapist to support of behavior change to improve exercise adherence in the older population.
著者
Yuki Kataoka Shiho Oide Takashi Ariie Yasushi Tsujimoto Toshi A. Furukawa
出版者
Society for Clinical Epidemiology
雑誌
Annals of Clinical Epidemiology (ISSN:24344338)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.3, no.2, pp.46-55, 2021 (Released:2021-04-01)
参考文献数
36

BACKGROUNDThe objective of this study was to investigate the methodological quality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) systematic reviews (SRs) indexed in medRxiv and PubMed, compared with Cochrane COVID Reviews.METHODSThis is a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. We searched medRxiv, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for SRs of COVID-19. We evaluated the methodological quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklists. The maximum AMSTAR score is 11, and minimum is 0. Higher score means better quality.RESULTSWe included 9 Cochrane reviews as well as randomly selected 100 non-Cochrane reviews in medRxiv and PubMed. Compared with Cochrane reviews (mean 9.33, standard deviation 1.32), the mean AMSTAR scores of the articles in medRxiv were lower (mean difference (MD): −2.85, 98.3% confidence intervals (CI): −0.96 to −4.74), and those in PubMed were also lower (MD: −3.28, 98.3%CI: −1.40 to −5.15), with no difference between the latter two.CONCLUSIONSReaders should pay attention to the potentially low methodological quality of SRs related to COVID-19 in both PubMed and medRxiv. Evidence users might be better to search the Cochrane Library rather than medRxiv or PubMed to search SRs related to COVID-19.