Epistemic beliefs as a determinant in evidence-based practice in physiotherapy–a multi-country (Europe) cross-sectional online survey study

Purpose: This article assumes that, in order to improve evidence-based practice in physiotherapy, practitioners need sophisticated epistemic beliefs. Epistemic beliefs, or how physiotherapists view knowledge and how they come to this knowledge, are an important factor. A high sophistication of epistemic beliefs is linked to better handling of the complexity and uncertainty of daily practice and the variety of evidence resources associated with this practice. Materials and methods: This study explored the epistemic beliefs of physiotherapists in 10 different countries in Europe using an online survey: the Connotative Aspects of Epistemic Beliefs (CAEB). Results and conclusions: The study resulted in 1419 surveys. The epistemic beliefs proved to be of little difference between countries, showing a low to moderate sophistication in epistemic beliefs. Given the similar results between countries, this study also suggested the possibility of collaborating internationally in developing an epistemology in physiotherapy that is more suited to the complexity of current demands on health systems. The development of sophistication in epistemic beliefs should be firmly on the agenda for the education of physiotherapists.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio

Epistemological beliefs of European physiotherapists – a multi-countrycross-cultural adaptation for the DEBQ and the CAEB questionnaires

[Abstract] This article assumes that epistemological beliefs of physiotherapists are an important determinant in improving the concept of evidence-based practice. Little research has been done on epistemological beliefs in physiotherapy. In order to measure the sophistication of epistemological beliefs in future research, two complementary questionnaires (DEBQ and CAEB) were cross-culturally adapted in nine different countries and seven languages in Europe. A standardized seven-step guideline was used to translate and culturally validate the questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed in the respective countries, resulting in 1386 participants. The psychometric values were analysed in order to verify consistency and validity. Based on the validation process, the instruments are considered to be validly adapted for the countries involved. The uniformity in the adaptation process allows for future comparison of the countries