Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Predicting Intentions to Use Research Evidence for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Treatment Decisions Among Certified Hand Therapists

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: Research evidence is not routinely used for clinical decisions among rehabilitation practitioners. The purpose of this study was to model the predictors of intention to use research evidence for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) clinical decisions among certified hand therapists (CHTs). Methods: A total of 308 American CHTs (M age = 46 years, SD = 8.1, M clinical experience = 21 years, SD = 8.2) completed a validated mail survey measuring the variables of intention, attitudes, subjective norms, self-efficacy, workload, and autonomy. Structural equation modeling was used to test the overall model and estimate the direct and indirect relationships of study variables on intention. Results: The model demonstrated excellent overall fit and explained 52% of the variance in intention. The direct significant predictors of intention were attitudes (β = 0.43) and subjective norms (β = 0.34) (Ps = 0.00). Self-efficacy and workload did not directly significantly predict intention (Ps = 0.82/0.09, respectively). Workload and autonomy did not indirectly significantly predict intention (Ps = 0.82/0.07, respectively). Neither did workload significantly predict attitudes (P = 0.06). There were no direct or indirect effects of autonomy, self-efficacy, or workload on the intention to use research evidence. However, autonomy significantly predicted self-efficacy (β = 0.36, P = 0.00). Conclusions: Intention to use research evidence in clinical practice is a complex yet predictable phenomenon. Attitudes and subjective norm were identified as significant predictors of intention. Workload, autonomy and self-efficacy did not directly or indirectly effect intentions for research use. Altering subjective norms and managing attitudes about research are recommended as key factors for increasing the use of research evidence for clinical decisions among CHTs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1,304 articles identified by searching the PubMed database. “Carpal tunnel syndrome [Mesh]”. Limits 01-01-2005 thru 12-31-2010.

References

  1. National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Fact Sheet. Bethesda, MD [updated 28 Dec 2010]; Available from: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/carpal_tunnel/detail_carpal_tunnel.htm.

  2. US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. Economic News Release. Bethesda, MD2009 [updated 9 Nov 2010]; Available from: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh2.t05.htm.

  3. Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Johnsson R, Sprinchorn A. Symptoms, disability, and quality of life in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg. 1999;24(2):398–404.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Connor D, Marshall S, Massy-Westropp N. Non-surgical treatment (other than steroid injection) for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1), Art. No.: CD003219. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003219.

  5. Huisstede BM, Hoogvliet P, Randsdorp MS, Glerum S, van Middelkoop M, Koes BW. Carpal tunnel syndrome. Part I: effectiveness of nonsurgical treatments–a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(7):981–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Piazzini DB, Aprile PE, Ferrara C, Bertolini P, Tonali L, Maggi A. A systematic review of conservative treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Rehabil. 2007;21:299–314.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Marshall SC, Tardif G, Ashworth ML. Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1.

  8. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Clinical practice guideline on the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome2008: Available from: http://www.aaos.org/Research/guidelines/CTSTreatmentGuideline.pdf.

  9. Jette DU, Bacon K, Batty C, Carlson M, Ferland A, Hemingway RD, et al. Evidence-Based practice: beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2003;83(9):786–805.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Salls J, Dolhi C, Silverman L, Hansen M. The use of evidence-based practice by occupational therapists. Occup Ther Health Care. 2009;23(02):134–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook RH. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998;76(517):563.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chassin, Galvin RW. The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of medicine roundtable on health care quality. JAMA. 1998;280(11):1000–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Buchan H. Gaps between best evidence and practice: causes for concern. Med J Aust. 2004;180(6):S48–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Olson KL, Bungard TJ, Tsuyuki RT. Cholesterol risk management: a systematic examination of the gap from evidence to practice. Pharmacotherapy. 2001;21(7):807–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Villar J, Carroll G, Gulmezoglu AM. The gap between evidence and practice in maternal healthcare. Int J Gynaecol Obstetrics. 2001;75:S47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Horsley JA, Crane J. Using research to improve nursing practice: a guide. New York: Grune & Stratton; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cader R, Campbell S, Watson D. Cognitive continuum theory in nursing decision-making. J Adv Nurs. 2005;49(4):397–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Litchfield R, MacDougall C. Professional issues for physiotherapists in family-centred and community-based settings. Aust J Physiother. 2002;48:105–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stevenson K, Lewis M, Hay E. Does physiotherapy management of low back pain change as a result of an evidence-based educational programme? J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(3):365–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bekkering GE, Engers AJ, Wensing M, Hendriks HJM, van Tulder MW, Oostendorp RAB, et al. Development of an implementation strategy for physiotherapy guidelines on low back pain. Aust J Physiother. 2003;49:208–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sudsawad P. Barriers and facilitators of research utilization for evidence-based practice. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;95:E10.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sweetland J, Craik C. The use of evidence-based practice by occupational therapists who treat adult stroke patients. Br J Occup Ther. 2001;64(5):256–60.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Salbach N, Jaglal SB, Korner-Bitensky N, Rappolt S, Davis D. Practitioner and organizational barriers to evidence-based practice of physical therapists for people with stroke. Phys Ther. 2007;87(10):1284–303.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mount J, Kern J, Delicana B, Levitsky E, Michlik E. Environmental supports and barriers to physical and occupational therapists using evidence-based practice in a neurological rehabilitation setting. J Neurol Phys Therapy. 2006;30(4):210.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bennett S, Tooth L, McKenna K, Rodger S, Strong J, Ziviani J, et al. Perceptions of evidence-based practice: a survey of Australian occupational therapists. Aust Occup Ther J. 2003;50(1):13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kamwendo K. What do Swedish physiotherapists feel about research? A survey of perceptions, attitudes, intentions and engagement. Physiother Res Int. 2002;7(1):23–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Metcalfe C, Lewin R, Wisher S, Perry S, Bannigan K, Moffett JK. Barriers to implementing the evidence base in four NHS therapies: dietitians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists. Physiotherapy. 2001;87(8):433–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Curtin M, Jaramazovic E. Occupational therapists’ views and perceptions of evidence-based practice. Br J Occup Ther. 2001;64(5):214–22.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Iles R, Davidson M. Evidence based practice: a survey of physiotherapists’ current practice. Physiother Res Int. 2006;11(2):93–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Meline T, Paradiso T. Evidence-based practice in schools: evaluating research and reducing barriers. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2003;34:273–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pollock AS, Legg L, Langhorne P, Sellars C. Barriers to achieving evidence-based stroke rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabil. 2000;14(6):611–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Schreiber J, Stern P. A review of the literature on evidence-based practice in physical therapy. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract. 2005;3(4).

  33. Zipoli RP, Kennedy M. Evidence-based practice among speech-language pathologists: attitudes, utilization, and barriers. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2005;14:208–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Larson EA, Zemke R. Shaping the temporal patterns of our lives: the social coordination of occupation. J Occup Sci. 2003;10(2):80–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Humphris D, Littlejohns P, Victor C, O’Halloran P, Peacock J. Implementing evidence-based practice: factors that influence the use of research evidence by occupational therapists. Br J Occup Ther. 2000;63(11):516–22.

    Google Scholar 

  36. McCluskey A. Occupational therapists report on low level of knowledge, skill and involvement in evidence-based practice. Aust Occup Ther J. 2003;50(1):3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rappolt S, Tassone M. How rehabilitation therapists gather, evaluate, and implement new knowledge. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2002;22:170–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dwyer DJ, Ganster DC. The effects of job demands and control on employee attendance and satisfaction. J Organ Behav. 1991;12(7):595–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Thompson D, O’Leary KA, Jensen E, Scott-Findlay S, O’Brien-Pallas L, Estabrooks CA. The relationship between busyness and research utilization: it is about time. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(4):539–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Dysart AM, Tomlin GS. Factors related to evidence-based practice among US occupational therapy clinicians. Am J Occup Ther. 2002;56(3):275–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Philibert DB, Snyder P, Judd D, Windsor MM. Practitioners’ reading patterns, attitudes, and use of research reported in occupational therapy journals. Am J Occup Ther. 2003;57:450–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Egan M, Dubouloz CJ, Zweck CV, Vallerand J. The client-centred evidence-based practice of occupational therapy. Can J Occup Ther. 1998;65(3):136–43.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ajzen I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:27–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. McColl A, Smith H, White P, Field J. General practitioners’ perceptions of the route to evidence based medicine: a questionnaire survey. Br Med J. 1998;316:361–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Human Decis Processes. 1991;50:179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Estabrooks CA. Modeling the individual determinants of research utilization. West J Nurs Res. 1999;21(6):758–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Estabrooks CA, Midodzi W, Cummings G, Wallin L. Predicting research use in nursing organizations: a multilevel analysis. Nurs Res. 2007;56(4 Suppl):S7–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cummings GG, Estabrooks CA, Midodzi WK, Wallin L, Hayduk L. Influence of organizational characteristics and context on research utilization. Nurs Res. 2007;56(4 Suppl):S24–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Milner FM, Estabrooks CA, Humphrey C. Clinical nurse educators as agents for change: increasing research utilization. Int J Nurs Stud. 2005;42:899–914.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Godin G, Belanger-Gravel A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Healthcare professionals’ intentions and behaviours: A systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories. Implement Sci. 2008;3:36.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Eccles M, Hrisos S, Francis J, Kaner EF, Dickinson HO, Beyer F, et al. Do self- reported intentions predict clinicians’ behaviour: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2006;1:28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kulh J, Beckman J, editors. Action-control: from cognition to behavior. Heidelberg: Springer; 1985. p. 11–39.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hackman JR. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organ Behav Human Perform. 1976;16:250–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Karaseck RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job re-design. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24:285–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Perkins MB, Jensen PS, Jaccard J, Gollwitzer P, Oettingen G, Pappadopulos E, et al. Applying theory-driven approaches to understanding, modifying clinicians’ behavior: what do we know? Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58(3):342–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. HTCC. Who is a certified hand therapist? Downloaded from http://htcc.org/about/index.cfm. 2007 [22 Oct 2007].

  58. Mattingly C, Fleming MH. Clinical reasoning: forms of inquiry in a therapeutic practice. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Higgs J, Jones M. Clinical reasoning in the health professions. In: Higgs J, Jones M, editors. Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2000. p. 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Gibson D, Velde B, Hoff T, Kvashay D, Manross PL, Moreau V. Clinical reasoning of a novice versus an experienced occupational therapist: a qualitative study. Occup Ther Health Care. 2000;12(4):15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Mitchell R, Unsworth CA. Clinical reasoning during community health home visits: expert and novice differences. Br J Occup Ther. 2005;68(5):215–23.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Unsworth CA. The clinical reasoning of novice and expert occupational therapists. Scand J Occup Ther. 2001;8:163–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Strong J, Gilbert J, Cassidy S, Bennett S. Expert clinicians’ and students’ views on clinical reasoning in occupational therapy. Br J Occup Ther. 1995;58(3):119–23.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Estabrooks CA. The conceptual structure of research utilization. Res Nurs Health. 1999;22:203–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Hackman JR, Oldman GR. The job diagnostic survey: an instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. New Haven, Conn: Yale University; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Caplan RD, Cobb S, French JRP, Van Harrison R, Pinneau SR. Job demands and worker health. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Fields DL. Taking the measure of work. Thousand Oak: Sage; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Francis JJ, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM, Foy R, et al. Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour. A manual for health services researchers. http://www.rebeqi.org/ViewFile.aspx?itemID=212. Downloaded 2-1-08.: Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; 2004.

  69. Willis G. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Pelz DC, Horsley JA. Measuring utilization of nursing research. In: Ciarlo JA, editor. Utilizing evaluation: concepts and measurement techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Groves RM, Fowler FJ, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R. Survey methodology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2 ed. 2007 update with new internet v, and mixed mode guide, editor. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Kaplan D. Structural equation modeling: foundations and extensions. 2cd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Publications, Inc.; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7 ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2009.

  76. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6:1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Yu CY. Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Los Angeles, CA: University of California; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(10):1129–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Godin G, Kok G. The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. Am J Health Promot. 1996;11(2):87–98.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001;40(Pt 4):471–99.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Conner M, Sparks P. Theory of planned behaviour and health behaviour. In: Conner M, Norman P, editors. Predicting health behaviour: research and practice with social cognition models. 2cd edition ed. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2005. p. 170–222.

  82. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13:319–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci. 1989;35:982–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance mode: four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci. 2000;46:186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. [serial on the Internet]. 2010;43(1)

  86. MacDermid JC, Graham I. Knowledge translation: putting the “Practice” in evidence-based practice. Hand Clin. 2009;25:125–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Funk SG, Champagne MT, Wiese RA, Tornquist ME. Barriers: the barriers to research utilization scale. Appl Nurs Res. 1991;4(1):39–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Lacey EA. Research utilization in nursing practice–a pilot study. J Adv Nurs. 1994;19:987–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Walczak JR, McGuire DB, Haisfield ME, Beezley A. A survey of research-related activities and perceived barriers to research utilization among professional oncology nurses. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1994;21:710–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Estabrooks CA, Scott S, Squires JE, Stevens B, O-Brien-Pallas L, Watt-Watson J, et al. Patterns of research utilization on patient care units. Implement Sci [serial on the Internet]. 2008;3.

  91. Lockyer J, Gondocz ST, Thivierge RL. Knowledge translation: the role and place of practice reflection. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2004;24(1):50–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Higgs J, Burn A, Jones M. Integrating clinical reasoning and evidence-based practice. AACN Clin Issues. 2001;12(4):482–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Sudsawad P. Developing a social validation model for effective utilization of disability and rehabilitation research2008: Available from: http://www.researchutilization.org/matrix/generate/switzerreport.html.

  94. Rubenstein LV, Pugh J. Strategies for promoting organizational and practice change by advancing implementation research. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(Suppl 2):S58–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Jacobson N, Butterill D, Goering P. Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(2):94–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Harvey G, Loftus-Hill A, Rycroft-Malone J, Titchen A, Kitson A, McCormack B, et al. Getting evidence into practice: the role and function of facilitation. J Adv Nurs. 2002;37(6):S77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Lomas J. The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ. 2007;334(7585):129–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Hamm RM. Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In: Dowie J, Elstein A, editors. Professional judgement: a reader in clinical decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988. p. 78–105.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Dorothy Farrar-Edwards, PhD, Ruth Benedict, EdD, Elizabeth Cox, MD, PhD, Erica Halverson, PhD, and Ben-Tzion Karsh, PhD–for assistance on my dissertation which formed a base for this study. My deepest thanks to all CHT respondents.

Conflict interest

No conflict interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gail N. Groth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Groth, G.N. Predicting Intentions to Use Research Evidence for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Treatment Decisions Among Certified Hand Therapists. J Occup Rehabil 21, 559–572 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9305-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9305-5

Keywords

Navigation