Physiotherapy Theory and Practice Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: Informa Healthcare

Journal description

The aim of Physiotherapy Theory and Practice is to provide an international, peer-reviewed forum for the publication, dissemination, and discussion of recent developments and current research in physiotherapy/physical therapy. The journal also encourages reports of interdisciplinary investigations; promotes post-basic education; publishes reviews and updates on all aspects of physiotherapy and the medical, surgical, and therapy specialties relating to clinical physiotherapy; and accepts original papers, review articles, and significant preliminary communications.

Current impact factor: 0.00

Impact Factor Rankings

Additional details

5-year impact 0.00
Cited half-life 0.00
Immediacy index 0.00
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.00
Website Physiotherapy Theory & Practice website
Other titles Physiotherapy theory and practice (Online), Physiotherapy theory and practice
ISSN 0959-3985
OCLC 43522336
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Informa Healthcare

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 12 months embargo
  • Conditions
    • On author's personal website or institution website
    • Publisher copyright and source must be acknowledged
    • Non-commercial
    • Must link to publisher version
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • NIH funded authors may post articles to PubMed Central for release 12 months after publication
    • Wellcome Trust authors may deposit in Europe PMC after 6 months
  • Classification
    ​ yellow

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Achieving competency in critical care in entry-level physiotherapy courses across Australia and New Zealand is not essential, and accredited training for qualified physiotherapists working in critical care units is lacking. As a result, practice standards and training may vary. The objective was to establish consensus-based minimum clinical practice standards for physiotherapists working in critical care settings in Australia and New Zealand. Design: A modified Delphi technique, which consisted of three rounds of questionnaires, was used to obtain consensus on items. Setting: Australian and New Zealand critical care settings. Participants: A panel (n=61) was invited from a pool of eligible physiotherapists throughout Australia and New Zealand (n=93). Eligibility criteria were defined a-priori on the basis of possession of expertise and experience in the practice and teaching of critical care physiotherapy clinical skills. Main outcome measure: Questionnaires were disseminated electronically (either via email, or SurveyMonkey®). Items were designated by participants as being ‘Essential/Unsure/Not Essential’. Consensus for inclusion was achieved when items were ranked ‘Essential’ by more than 70% of participants. Results: Fifty physiotherapists consented and participated in the initial Delphi round, of whom forty-five (90%) completed all rounds. Consensus was reached on 199 (89%) items. The panel agreed that 132 (58%) items were ‘Essential’ items for inclusion in the final framework. Conclusions: This is the first study to develop a consensus framework of minimum standards of practice for physiotherapists working in critical care. The clinical utility of this framework now requires assessment. Trial registration: ACTRN12613000753752.
    Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 10/2016;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The study investigated the effect of prehabilitation on quality of life and function. Methods: A pilot randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Sixty-four people undergoing elective lower-limb arthroplasty were included. Prehabilitation included one-hour twice-weekly sessions for at least three and a maximum of four weeks prior to surgery. Control participants did not complete any pre-surgical programs. Health utility and quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D-3L and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale were the primary outcomes measured before allocation and eight weeks post-operatively. Results: No between-group differences were evident in health utility (main effect of group -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08, p = 0.50) or Patient-Specific Functional Scale (main effect of group -0.59 (95% CI -1.8 to 0.6, p = 0.73) but the group-by-joint interaction effects for the Timed Up and Go (7.6 (95% CI -0.9 to 16.1, p = 0.08)) and the EQ-5D VAS (-18.3 (95% CI -41.1 to 4.5), p = 0.11) were larger. Prehabilitation participants knee flexion improved by 12.6 degrees (95% CI 5.2 to 20, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Prehabilitation improved knee flexion but this did not translate into improved functional mobility or quality of life. Clinical Trial Registration number: ACTRN12610000777099 (Australian Clinical Trials Registry)
    Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 08/2016;
  • Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 10/2015; 31(7):451-460. DOI:10.3109/09593985.2015.1037409
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with low back pain (LBP) often display faulty beliefs and cognitions regarding their pain experience. Pain neuroscience education (NE) aims to alter the pain experience by targeting these faulty beliefs and cognitions. One NE strategy aims specifically to reframe commonly held beliefs about tissues by patients with LBP as the single source of pain. In line with this reasoning, it is hypothesized that physical therapists (PT) treating patients with LBP may indeed experience similar, if not worse, pain experiences while treating a patient with LBP. To date, this assumption has never been studied. A PT LBP questionnaire was developed, validated and distributed to a convenience sample of attendees of an international PT conference. One-hundred and ten PTs completed the questionnaire for a 70.79% response rate. Ninety percent of the PT’s reported having experienced LBP; with 27% at the conference experiencing LBP at the time. Of the PT’s that have experienced LBP 75% reported not having received any imaging; 81% no formal diagnoses, 57.6% no treatment and 86% not having missed work due to LBP. Eighty-six percent of therapists reported having experienced LBP while treating a patient with LBP, with 50% convinced their LBP being higher than the LBP experienced by the patient they were treated. The results from this study indicate PTs often treat patients with LBP while suffering LBP. It is suggested that this knowledge may potentially help patients with LBP reconceptualize their LBP experience leading to expedited recovery.
    Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 01/2015;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of active or passive end-range determination (supine position) for external rotation range of motion (ROM) in overhead throwing athletes and verify if athlete's ROM is similar to non-athletes. Kinematic data from the dominant shoulder of 24 healthy male subjects, divided into two groups (12 athletes and 12 non-athletes) were recorded at end-range external rotation, thoracohumeral and glenohumeral external rotation angles were compared and a 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to calculate the effects of end-range determination (passive versus active) across groups (athlete and non-athlete). A significant main effect (p < 0.001) on both thoracohumeral and glenohumeral external end-range angles was observed while the highest end-range determination values were associated with passive motion. No differences were observed between the athletic or non-athletic groups for either thoracohumeral (p = 0.784) or glenohumeral (p = 0.364) motion.
    1st International Conference of Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, Venice, Italy; 10/2010