查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- The Perceived Values of Physical Agents by Physical Therapists and Physiatrists
- 由資深物理治療師人力探究物理治療師訓練機構認定標準
- 物理治療師與學生對臺灣訂定「實習物理治療師制度」之問卷調查
- Physical Therapists' Education on Sport Rehabilitation for People with Spinal Cord Injury in the United Kingdom
- Physical Therapy Faculty Activity Survey: A Comparison between the Republic of China and the United States of America
- 物理治療師在啟智學校中的角色
- 物理治療師於長期照護體系的角色功能
- 物理治療師工作相關之疼痛
- 物理治療師在護理之家參與住民活動的角色與功能
- 物理治療師在長期照護機構中團體活動之經驗談
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | The Perceived Values of Physical Agents by Physical Therapists and Physiatrists=物理治療師與復健醫師對物理因子療效之認知情況及差異 |
---|---|
作 者 | 王瑞瑤; | 書刊名 | 中華民國物理治療學會雜誌 |
卷 期 | 23:3 1998.07[民87.07] |
頁 次 | 頁170-177 |
分類號 | 418.996 |
關鍵詞 | 物理因子; 療效之認知; 物理治療師; 復健醫師; Physical agents; Perceived effects; Physical therapists; Physiatrists; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 物理因子可配合其他治療或單獨使用,產生一定效果,而臨床卻無對物理治療師 或復健醫師對物理因子療效之看法做一系統分析探討。本研究即針對此部份為研究,並探討 物理治療師或復健醫師在不同病況下,認為何者為最有效或最常使用之物理治療因子。本研 究以郵寄問卷調查方式進行,共計回收178位物理治療師及66位復健醫師之問卷,問卷內容 包括受訪者一般資料及對冷療、主動運動、被動運動、干擾波、雷射、磁場電療、短波、微 波、牽引、超音波、經皮神經刺激、紫外線、紅內線、水療、熱敷、蠟療、高壓間斷刺激及 離子透入怯等18種不同物理因子療效之認知。研究結果顯示一半以上(59.3%)之物理治療師 認為干擾波可增進傷口癒合,但只有低於百分之二十之復健醫師有相同的想法(p<0.05),而 對干擾波可降低水腫之效果方面,物理治療師與復健醫師亦存有相當大的差異(p<0.01)。百 分之二十一之物理治療師認為磁場治療可有效地增加組織延展性,但復健醫師卻完全不認為 磁場洽療有此效果(p<0.01)。有較多之復健醫師認為微波、紅內線、水療、熱敷及蠟療對降 低發炎有效(p<0.05),然而有較多之物理治療師認為紅內線可有效地增加組織之延展性及高 壓間歇刺激對傷口癒合有效(p<0.05)。由本研究結果顯示對臨床常使用之物理治療因子療效 之認知,物理治療師與復健醫師之間仍存有相當之差異,因此建議這兩專業間之互動是相當 重要的,以確保病人得到最有效的治療。 |
英文摘要 | Physical agents can be beneficial to patients as treatment in themselves or as adjuncts to other management. The opinions of physical therapists and physiatrists regarding the values of physical agents are not known. The purpose of the study is to investigate the perceived effects of various modalities by physical therapists and physiatrists. The most effective modalities chosen for specific condition by both specialties were also surveyed. One hundred and seventy-eight physical therapists and 66 physiatrists were surveyed. The survey questionnaires were distributed by mail. The questionnaires contained respondent's general information, and specific opinions on 18 different physical modalities including cryotherapy, active exercise, passive exercise, interferential current, laser, magnetotherapy, shortwave, microwave, traction, ultrasound, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, ultraviolet, infrared, hydrotherapy, hot pack, paraffin, high voltage pulsed stimulation, and iontophoresis. More than one half (53.9%) of the physical therapists perceived that interferential current could improve wound healing, yet, less than 20 percent of physiatrists perceived the same way (p<.05). The difference on the effect of interferential current for decreasing edema had also been noted between physiatrists and physical therapists (p<.0l). Twenty-one percent of physical therapists thought magneto-therapy is effective in increasing tissue extensibility, but none of the physiastrists did (p<.05). More physiatrists perceived that microwave diathermy, infrared, hydrotherapy, hot pack and paraffin are effective in decreasing inflammation, compared with physical therapists (p<.05). However, more physical therapists thought that infrared is effective in increasing tissue extensibility, and that high voltage pulsed stimulation is more effective in promoting wound healing (p<.05). There were significant differences in the perceived benefits of these modalities between physical therapists and physiastrists. Our findings suggest that further education and a closer interaction for both specialties are essential to ensure that the patient receives the best available and most cost-effective treatment. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。