Award Date

5-1-2023

Degree Type

Doctoral Project

Degree Name

Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT)

Department

Physical Therapy

First Committee Member

Daniel Young

Second Committee Member

Tiffany Barrett

Third Committee Member

Merrill Landers

Number of Pages

60

Abstract

Background: Despite 2D motion analysis being deemed valid and reliable in assessing gait deviations in runners, current use of video-based motion analysis among orthopedic physical therapists is not prevalent. Purpose/Hypothesis: To investigate clinician-perceived effectiveness, adherence, and barriers of using a 2D running gait analysis protocol for patients with running-related injuries. Study Design: Survey Methods: Thirty outpatient physical therapy clinics were contacted to assess interest in participation. The participating therapists were trained on 2D running gait analysis protocol and given a running gait checklist. We used Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to assess the implementation process by collecting a baseline survey at the beginning of the study, effectiveness and implementation surveys at 2 months, and a maintenance survey at 6 months. Results: 12 of the 15 responding clinics met eligibility criteria, producing a reach rate of 80%. 12 clinicians from 10 different clinics participated, producing an adoption rate of 83%. For effectiveness, the majority of the clinicians valued having a checklist, and reported that the protocol is easy to conduct, the methodology is reasonable and appropriate, and the patients see the benefits of using the protocol. Assessing implementation, 92% performed all steps of the protocol on all appropriate runners. Average time spent conducting the protocol was 32 minutes. With respect to Maintenance, 42% reported continuing to use the protocol, while 58% reported discontinuing use. Conclusion: Clinicians expressed a perceived benefit of implementing a running gait analysis protocol with common themes of ease of use, being a useful adjunct to evaluating a patient, and increased satisfaction when treating injured runners. Potential barriers for not using the protocol included not having appropriate clinic setup, time constraints, and not having adequate caseload. Level of Evidence: Level VI

Keywords

2D Motion Analysis; Runners; Implementation; Running Assessment

Disciplines

Physical Therapy

File Format

pdf

File Size

1362 KB

Degree Grantor

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Language

English

Rights

IN COPYRIGHT. For more information about this rights statement, please visit http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Download


Share

COinS