The Dissemination of Intervention Based Research for Practitioner Development

Introduction: Healthcare performance can be improved by the engagement of clinicians with contemporary research evidence. However, the time between research evidence being produced and its dissemination and use in practice takes on average 17 years (1). The effective dissemination of healthcare research is therefore important to reduce the research-to-practice time gap and maximise the impact of the treatment intervention. Knowledge transfer and knowledge gain has become increasingly prevalent within the scientific literature and has become an important topic within the field of sports injury. Many clinical practitioners have a prevalence for formal learning methods which has led to the extensive provision of conferences and workshops to extend and maintain practitioner knowledge and ability. Participation in active CPD approaches such as workshops, have been shown to improve knowledge and practice behaviours to a greater extent than passive methods. Short-course CPD is a time efficient way to disseminate research and influence practice and can positively affect attendees self-efficacy (2). The purpose of this study was to disseminate research information into the treatment of Chronic Ankle instability (CAI) to develop practitioner’s knowledge and influence intended future practice.

Methods: 102 clinical practitioners (mean SD: age 25.1 ±5.9yrs, years of practice 3.1 ±3.2yrs range 1-16 years) attended a workshop where research recommendations for the treatment of CAI were presented. Participants attended either a face-to-face or virtual workshop lasting 30 minutes. The workshop outlined (1) the epidemiology and pathology of CAI; (2) the results and clinical implications of the research and (3) specific guidance to implement the identified treatment protocols. Measures were taken via questionnaire prior to the workshop to ascertain current knowledge and experience with CAI. A follow-up questionnaire was completed to identify the impact on the practitioner’s knowledge and understanding, and the extent to which the information would influence future practice. Descriptive and frequency distributions were carried out on all outcome variables. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed on all paired questionnaire data to identify if there was a significant improvement in knowledge following the workshop.

Results: The workshop elicited a statistically significant median increase in participants knowledge of CAI issues (z = 8.990, p ≤ 0.001), knowledge of mobilisation treatment for CAI (z = 8.973, p ≤ 0.001) and knowledge of exercise treatment for CAI (z = 9.017, p ≤0.001). Practitioners showed enhanced levels of confidence following the workshop (z = 8.659, p ≤ 0.001). Subsequently, nearly all practitioners stated that it was likely or very likely that their future treatment of CAI would take note of the research findings (99.02%) and follow the recommendations of the workshop (100%). Similarly, 98.04% agreed or strongly agreed that they would use the information from the workshop in all their sessions and be able to adapt it to suit their needs, whilst 100% thought the information would be useful in the long term.

Conclusions: The use of CPD workshops is an ideal means by which to disseminate research in an accessible manner, particularly with the rise of social media and video conferencing software. A clear improvement in practitioner knowledge and understanding of CAI and treatment methods was evident following the CPD workshop. Following the CPD workshop the practitioner’s behavioural intention to use the information provided was clear and shows that intended clinical practice can be enhanced using workshop-based research dissemination.