Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988 Mar;69(3):167-9.
Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
M J Fuhrer, M Grabois
PMID: 3348713
As part of a mail survey of physiatrists' views of conducting research, respondents were queried regarding information sources that influenced their introducing a clinical innovation into their practices in the past two years. Complete information was obtained from 356 individuals. The reported practice innovations were categorized as follows: (a) evoked potentials (6% of respondents); (b) electrophysiologic diagnostic procedures other than evoked potentials (19%); (c) other diagnostic/assessment procedures (11%); (d) transcutaneous nerve stimulation (6%); (e) physical treatment procedures other than transcutaneous nerve stimulation (22%); (f) medication (5%); (g) psychologic or social intervention (4%); and (h) altered methods of service delivery (27%). Considered across all practice innovation categories, the average relative importance (in descending order) of the information sources was as follows: (1) discovery in the individual's own practice; (2) a meeting, lecture, or continuing education course; (3) a clinical coworker; (4) a write-up in the clinical literature; (5) the individual's own research; (6) a patient; (7) a write-up in the research literature; (8) a textbook; and (9) the representative of a drug firm or equipment manufacturer. Additional findings concern variables which distinguished a group of 43 individuals who reported introducing no innovation into their practices for the preceding two years, compared to the 356 individuals who did so.
