Implementation of 2D Running Gait Analysis in Orthopedic Physical Therapy Clinics
# Background Despite 2D motion analysis 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 barrie...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
North American Sports Medicine Institute
2023-06-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.74726 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | # Background
Despite 2D motion analysis 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 to 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. Participating therapists were trained on 2D running gait analysis protocol and given a running gait checklist. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to assess the implementation process by collecting a baseline survey at the beginning of the study, effectiveness and implementation surveys at two months, and a maintenance survey at six months.
# Results
Twelve of the 15 responding clinics met eligibility criteria, giving a *Reach* rate of 80%. Twelve clinicians from 10 different clinics participated, giving an *Adoption* rate of 83%. For *Effectiveness*, the majority of clinicians valued having a checklist, and reported the protocol was easy to conduct, the methodology was reasonable and appropriate, and patients saw 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*, 50% reported continuing to use the protocol, while 50% answered they were not to continue 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 with treating injured runners. Potential barriers for not using the protocol included not having an appropriate clinic setup, time constraints, and not having adequate caseload.
# Level of Evidence
3b |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2159-2896 |