Table 3 Factors that influence the decision to use EPAs
From: Clinical decision making for using electro-physical agents by physiotherapists, an Israeli survey
Factors | Level of influence: percentage (frequency) | Rank score* | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
None (1) | Some (2) | Medium (3) | Strong (4) | Very strong (5) | ||
1. Background and experience | 2 | |||||
Entry level (undergraduate) studies & training background | 3.6 (5) | 8.6 (12) | 28.8 (40) | 44.6 (62) | 14.4 (20) | |
Continuing education studies & training | 13.2 (18) | 11.1 (15) | 22.8 (31) | 39.7 (54) | 13.2 (18) | |
Previous clinical experience with EPSs | 1.4 (2) | 2.9 (4) | 15.1 (21) | 49.7 (69) | 30.9 (43) | |
Demonstration and exposure to new equipment by medical marketers | 21.6 (30) | 27.3 (38) | 36 (50) | 12.9 (18) | 2.2 (3) | |
2. Research evidence for efficacy | 5 (7) | 8.5 (12) | 31.9 (45) | 39.7 (56) | 14.9 (21) | 2 |
3. Technology-related issues | 3 | |||||
“Technophobia” | 61 (86) | 17 (24) | 14.9 (21) | 5 (7) | 2.1 (3) | |
Fear of adverse events | 30.5 (43) | 35.5 (50) | 18.4 (26) | 12.8 (18) | 2.8 (4) | |
4. Availability of equipment | 4.3 (6) | 5 (7) | 25.7 (36) | 35 (49) | 30 (42) | 1 |
5. Operation issues | 2 | |||||
Time and ease of application | 12.8 (18 ) | 18.4 (26) | 32.6 (46) | 29.8 (42) | 6.4 (9) | |
Degree of self-confidence operating the device | 9.2 (13) | 10.6 (15) | 17.7 (25) | 44.7 (63) | 17.8 (25) | |
Busy and tight schedule at workplace | 14.2 (20) | 20.6 (29) | 32.6 (46) | 22 (31) | 10.6 (15) | |
6. Preferences | 3 | |||||
Patient preference/request | 5.7 (8) | 23.6 (33) | 32.9 (46) | 29.3 (41) | 8.5 (12) | |
Instruction prescribed by referred physician | 38.3 (54) | 32.6 (46) | 20.6 (29) | 6.4 (9) | 2.1 (3) | |