JRLMAR2008 Layout SA JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY 2008 VOL 64 NO 2 5 The Awareness and Use of Outcome Measures by South African Physiotherapists Research Ar t ic le INTRODUCTION Health care professionals, including physiotherapists, are under pressure to provide evidence for therapeutic inter- ventions (Iles and Davidson, 2006; Jette et al, 2003). It is well documented that healthcare service providers who can demonstrate the effectiveness of care through improved patient outcome, will also be more successful when competing for purchaser funding (Grimmer et al, 2000; Chesson et al, 1996). Purchasers of healthcare may be the patient, hospital administrators, medical aid funders or insurers. An outcome measure (OM) is defined as “a measurement tool (instrument, questionnaire, rating form) used to document change in one or more patient characteristic over time” (Cole et al, 1995). OM’s can be used to measure, demon- strate and monitor therapy within daily physiotherapy clinical practice (Chesson et al, 1996; Lennon, 1995). OM’s can be used to generate evidence to develop new interventions or change existing services (Basmajian and Banerjee, 1996). Chesson et al (1996) affirm that the use of outcome measures “will help to esta- blish credibility, not only with other professions, but also with clients, the community and governments”. Outcome measures can be used to measure the different components of health status, which include the physical impairments caused by a disease, the limitations imposed on activity levels, and restrictions on participation of an individual in society, his/her family life, work and recreation (World Health Organization, 2001). All these compo- nents of health are well described by WHO (2001) in the International classi- fication of functioning, disability and health. Quality of life (QoL) measures reflect the patients’ perspective of their day-to-day functioning and well-being (Jette and Jette, 1997). Internationally, physiotherapy orga- nizations have started to advocate the use of OM’s to their members. The World Confederation of Physical Therapy (WCPT), the Chartered Society Correspondence to: Gakeemah Inglis-Jassiem Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University PO Box 19063 7505 Tygerberg, South Africa Fax: +27 -21 931-1252 Tel: (021) 930-9300 (w) Email: gakeemah@sun.ac.za ABSTRACT: Physiotherapists as well as otherhealth care providers are under pressure to provide evidence for the effectiveness of their inter- ventions. Therefore it has become necessary to employ standardized and robust outcome measures in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to determine the awareness of and use of outcome measures (OM’s) amongst physiotherapists in South Africa. A survey was conducted in 2004 using a self-developed electronic questionnaire consisting of 18 questions, both open- and closed-ended. A population-based sample consisting of 1102 members on the email address list of the South Africa Society of Physiotherapy (SASP) was used. Data analysis consisted of both descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis for the open-ended questions. The response rate was 15.2% (n=168). Ninety one percent of respondents reported to have heard of OM’s while 84% reported using OM’s regularly. Impairment related measures were predominantly in use. The two main themes that emerged from the respondents’comments related to reasons forusing OM’s were “effective clinical practice”(82%) and “evidence-based practice” (15%). Time constraints and lack of sufficient knowledge in the use of OM’s, were cited as obstacles to using OM’s. These findings have implications for the South African physiotherapy community in terms of education, continuous professional development (CPD) and future research in the usage frequency of OM’s. KEYWORDS: OUTCOME MEASURES, AWARENESS, USE OF OUTCOME MEASURES, EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE, SOUTH AFRICA, PHYSIOTHERAPISTS. Inglis G, MSc Physiotherapy (US), BSc Physiotherapy (UWC)1; Faure M, Dipl Physiotherapy (UCT), BA (UNISA), MPhil (UWC)2; Frieg A, M Phil (Rehab) US3 1 Lecturer - Physiotherapy Department (Stellenbosch University). 2 Previous Head of Physiotherapy Department (US). 3 Physiotherapist, Cape Town. of Physiotherapy (CSP) in the United Kingdom (UK) and the Canadian Physio- therapy Association (CPA) have all conducted research to identify their members’ needs regarding OM’s and have implemented national policies and programs to assist members to effectively utilize these tools (World Confederation of Physical Therapy, 2003; Chesson et al, 1996; Cole et al, 1995). The current situation regarding the awareness and use of OM’s by physio- therapists in South Africa is not known. 6 SA JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY 2008 VOL 64 NO 2 In the light of the political and health- care transformation in South Africa it has become increasingly important for physiotherapists to justify the role of physiotherapy in promoting health to government and private funders. The global drive for the incorporation of OM’s and the current national reform motivated the researchers to conduct a survey in 2004-2005. The aims of the survey were to describe the awareness of members of the South African Society of Physiotherapy (SASP) regarding OM’s, to describe the usage patterns of OM’s as well as the characteristics of the OM’s in use. The researchers also wanted to identify the specific educa- tional needs of physiotherapists regard- ing OM’s in South Africa. METHODOLOGY An electronic survey was conducted as part of a descriptive study design. A population-based sample consisting of all members of the South Africa Society of Physiotherapy (SASP) listed on the national email address-list held at the SASP Head Office was included. According to the SASP head office there were approximately 1129 members list- ed in February 2004 (Personal corre- spondence with the CEO, February 2004). Permission to use the address list for the study was granted by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and executive committee of the SASP. Ethical clear- ance was obtained from the Committee for Human Research at Stellenbosch University (N04/03/055). The survey questionnaires were sent out electronically for ease of admini- stration, distribution, time efficiency and to limit expenditure. To retain con- fidentiality of the email address list, the administrative staff at the SASP head office was responsible for emailing the questionnaires to the therapists. The respondents were requested to forward their completed questionnaires to the address of a research assistant stationed at the Physiotherapy Department, Uni- versity of Stellenbosch (US). To ensure anonymity, the names or email address of the respondents were deleted from all returned questionnaires by the research assistant. These questionnaires were then printed and forwarded to the researchers in hard copy format for further analysis. Due to a poor initial response rate in 2004 of only 9% (n=102), the survey was re-sent to the entire group of therapists in 2005. Respondents were requested not to respond to the second survey if they had already done so to the initial posting. Physiotherapists who were no longer practicing were excluded as the researchers wanted to identify the awareness and use of OM’s in current daily clinical practice. Non-practicing therapists may be familiar with OM’s but would not have provided information on the impact of these tools clinically. Instrumentation1 A self-developed questionnaire was used for the electronic survey. It consisted of 18 questions of which 5 were open-ended and 13 were closed-ended. The ques- tionnaire comprised of two sections: • Section A related to the respondents’ demographic details, and • Section B aimed to capture the respondents’ awareness and use of OM’s. Respondents had to indicate sources where they had heard of OM’s, specific OM’s used, frequency of use, possible reasons for the use of OM’s as well as barriers. They were also requested to indicate the best ways of disseminating information regard- ing OM’s to other physiotherapists. The OM’s ranged from general to those specific to a subject area in physio- therapy. Provision was made for the respondents to add OM’s to those listed in the questionnaire. The choice of the OM’s included in the questionnaire was informed by peer consultation, review of the pertinent lite- rature and recent similar studies on OM’s. The content validity of the ques- tionnaire was conducted by reviewing the contents of similar published ques- tionnaires (Huijbregts et al, 2002; Kay et al, 2001; Chesson et al, 1996). A list of items to be included in the questionnaire was generated and further content vali- dity was established via consultation with academics and specialists in dif- ferent physiotherapy subject areas. Academics from South African univer- sities, who taught in the various physio- therapy subject areas, were consulted. These individuals were requested to ascertain whether the list of OM’s was comprehensive and inclusive of all OM’s used in the subject areas in S.A. A pilot study was also conducted to assess the user-friendliness of the elec- tronic questionnaire and whether each item on the questionnaire addressed the objectives set. Questionnaires were sent electronically to eight physiotherapists in the Cape Town area who were not members of the SASP and would there- fore not form part of the research sam- ple. The respondents were requested to forward any comments regarding the clarity of instructions, ease of complet- ing the questionnaire electronically and to make any other suggestions. Based on their comments, the table formatting was revised before the questionnaire was forwarded to the research sample. Statistical Analysis The completed questionnaires were numbered and the data entered into an Excel spreadsheet to allow for initial ordering and capturing of the data. The statistical package, “Statistica”, was employed and analysis of the data consisted of calculating descriptive statistics for the responses to all the questions. These descriptive statistics were presented in the form of histograms, bar and pie charts, and tables giving fre- quencies of responses with percentages. Qualitative analysis was employed for data derived from open-ended questions which dealt with the main reasons for using OM’s, the obstacles to their use and educational needs of physiotherapists with regards to OM’s. The researchers grouped the comments to identify major themes for each of the questions. These themes were then depicted by means of pie graphs and typical comments were paraphrased in the text to further describe the identified themes. 1 Contact the 1st author for a copy of the instrument SA JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY 2008 VOL 64 NO 2 7 RESULTS In total, 168 completed questionnaires were received at the end of the survey (includes both attempts), resulting in a final response rate of 15.2% (n=168/1102). Fifty three returned questionnaires were however excluded from the final analysis as they were blank, incomplete or “undeliverable”. See Figure 1 for more detail. Demographic information of sample The majority of respondents (58%) worked in orthopaedic related fields, such as Orthopaedic Manipulative The- rapy (OMT), Orthopaedics and Sport. Eighty percent of the respondents were private practitioners while the remain- ing therapists worked in the public- (10%) or education sectors (10%). The greatest proportion of responding physiotherapists practised in Gauteng (41%) and the Western Cape (30%). The sample represented many of the special interest groups (SIG) such as the “Orthopaedic” SIG (89 respondents), the “Neuro-rehabilitation” SIG (19), “Cardiopulmonary” (10) and the “Public sector” SIG (10). Most of the respon- dents were well experienced therapists with more than 10 years experience (53%). Twenty five percent of respon- dents had between 5 and 10 years experience while 20% had less than 5 years experience. The rest of the results below will depict the exact number of respondents for each section.As can be seen in Table 1, most respondents had been exposed to OM’s by reading journal articles (58%) or as students (37%). Most of these therapists were however using impair- ment-based OM’s such as auscultation, ROM and Oxford scale, with very few using participation measures. Ease of use of OM’s (n=different for each OM) The respiratory-related impairment measures were considered to be the most user-friendly. It should be noted that the OM’s most often used were also amongst those reported to be the most user-friendly (Figure 2). Physio- therapists were equally divided in the perception of user-friendliness of function-related measures such as the “Barthel Index”. Participation type measures were considered to be of the least user-friendly OM’s, e.g. the “Functional Independence Measure” (FIM) and “SF 36”. Figure 1: Response rate of survey to physiotherapists. Initial sample (n=1129) (- 27 mails undeliverable due to incorrect addresses) Adjusted sample, i.e. n=1102 Responses after 1st survey posting, i.e. n=102 (9,3%) Responses after repeat of survey (second posting), i.e. n=117 (10,6%) Total Responses, i.e. n=219 (19,9%) (n=102+117) Sample for final analysis, i.e. n=168 (15,2%) (- 47 blank/incomplete; 4 non-practicing therapists) Table 1: Awareness of outcome measures amongst SA physiotherapists Total responses (n) Frequency Sources of information on OM’s Examples of OM’s most frequently mentioned n=163 n=149/163 Journal article (58%) Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (66%) Undergraduate (37%) Oxford Scale (63%) CPD (33%) 6-minWalk Test (63%) Work (32%) ROM (63%) Table 2: Use of outcome measures amongst SA physiotherapists Total responses (n) Frequency OM’s most frequently used OM’s least frequently used n=148 n=125/148 Type: Impairment measures Type: Quality-of-life (QoL) measures Examples: Examples: Auscultation CSI (Caregivers Strain Index) ROM RNLI (Reintegration to Normal Living Index) Oxford Scale 8 SA JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY 2008 VOL 64 NO 2 Main reasons for using outcome measures (n=140) The two main themes that emerged from the respondents’ comments were “effective clinical practice” (82%) and “evidence-based practice” (15%). Included in the first theme there were forty six responses which indicated that OM’s were used to “evaluate effec- tiveness of treatment or intervention”. Following this, 38 comments indicated that OM’s were used to “measure patient progress or improvement”. OM’s were considered to be an “objective and reliable measure” of clinical effective- ness and an “accurate reproducible means of record keeping”. Perceived obstacles to the use of OM’s (n=133) Four main themes emerged when respondents reflected on the obstacles to the use of OM’s (Fig. 3). Most respon- dents felt that time and staff shortages were the largest barriers to using OM’s (46%). Other obstacles mentioned were related to the instrument or OM (31%), the target client(s) with whom the OM was used (13%) and the therapists’ lack of knowledge or experience with OM’s (9%). The following are typical comments made by physiotherapists in our survey regarding the OM instru- ments/tools, • Poor “accuracy”, “subjectivity”, “sensitivity” and “inappropriate equipment to measure” • OM’s were “difficult to use”, were “(in) accessible” and often involved “cost” Client related obstacles centred mainly on “patients’ perceptions” of OM’s and “literacy of clients” in the South African context. Respondents also indicated that their “lack of knowledge”, “lack of experience in using OM’s” and “inade- quate training” were obstacles to using OM’s. They were also “not sure which outcome measures to use”. DISCUSSION The physiotherapy profession plays an integral part in the health care system as it involves the promotion of health, prevention of dysfunction and the acute care and rehabilitation of individuals with disability (Higgs et al, 2001). In Figure 2: Response regarding ease of use of OM’s amongst SA physiotherapists (Multiple responses permitted) Figure 3: Perceived obstacles to the use of outcome measures (Multiple responses permitted) SA JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY 2008 VOL 64 NO 2 9 order to fulfil their role, “physio- therapists are legally and professionally required to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the client, formulate a physiotherapy diagnosis, plan and implement a therapeutic programme where appropriate, evaluate the out- come of any intervention, and determine discharge arrangements”(WCPT, 1999). The consistent incorporation of OM’s has become even more important due to the increasing demand being placed on healthcare professionals to provide evidence to support the effectiveness of their interventions and therapists are encouraged to use reliable, valid and sensitive OM’s for all areas of physio- therapy management (Maher and Williams, 2005). The majority of South African physiotherapists surveyed in 2004 were aware of OM’s, but tended to use predominantly impairment-based and non-standardized OM’s. This is in contrast to the findings of a study con- ducted in Nigeria in 2000 that indicated a low level of awareness and use of OM’s (Akinpelu and Eluchie, 2006). The Nigerian study, however, utilized a prescribed list of standardized OM’s whereas our study used both non- and standardised OM’s. The majority of the South African respondents indicated that professional journal articles were the main source of information on OM’s and this is similar to previous findings in a Canadian study (Kay et al, 2001). Apart from the written format, Canadian physiotherapists also indicated receiving information on OM’s during presen- tations and in-service training on the topic to further facilitate their clinical use of OM’s. The South African Health Department and SASP could attempt similar programmes to assist physio- therapists to use OM’s consistently in daily clinical practice. The findings of this study suggest that the respondents evaluate patient progress and management at the level of impairment as the majority of reported OM’s fell into this category. Impairment OM’s only reflect information at a physiological or structural level, e.g. goniometry, strength or pain (Hammond, 2000). Respondents indicated that they frequently used generic OM’s such as the Visual Analogue Scale (“VAS”), Range of Motion (“ROM”) and Manual Muscle Testing (“Oxford Scale”). While these OM’s may be easy to use, they have poor validity and/ reliability and many are not sensitive enough. Goniometry is considered a valid measure of joint ROM but it has poor inter-tester reliability as application of the goniometer is often not standardized across physiotherapists. Another dis- advantage of this tool is the coincidental location of its fulcrum with the axis of rotation of the joint and without proper placement of the goniometer relative to the joint, unreliable results ensue (Brosseau et al, 2001). Manual Muscle Testing remains a subjective measure which lacks sensitivity and has proven poor inter- and intra-tester reliability (Bohannon, 2005; Grimmer et al, 2000). Problems include the differential appli- cation and interpretation of muscle tests, the possibility of subjective assessment of response and the categorical nature of the strength scale. The respondents also reported using respiratory related impair- ment measures, i.e. “Auscultation” and “Peak Expiratory Flow Rate”. Auscultation relies on subjective inter- pretation of lung sounds that can be heard via a stethoscope. The reported poor reliability of auscultation is con- cerning as physiotherapists often have to treat patients previously examined by other colleagues and use these findings to judge changes in the patients’ status (Aweida & Kelsey, 1990; Brooks & Thomas, 1995). The “Barthel Index” (BI) is an acti- vity measure which only 10 physio- therapists in our study reported using. The BI has several limitations which include omission of some activities of daily living such as cooking or shopping and does not reflect mental status and social well-being (Bowling, 1997). This scale has both floor and ceiling effects in that further physical improvement can occur beyond the endpoints of the scale. Only a few respondents appeared to use QoLmeasures. QoLmeasures were however amongst those mentioned as being less user-friendly and this might play a role in the lack of their use. These measures often require more time spent with the patient, skill on the part of the measurer and is often used at the end of a series of interventions or the rehabi- litation process (Tooth et al, 2003). It would appear from the array of OM’s used that these respondents were more interested in the impairment level and less so in activity and participation level. It could be argued that physiotherapists in this sample were more interested in the immediate effect of therapy rather than the cumulative effect of a rehabili- tation process. Effective clinical practice and evi- dence-based practice (EBP) were the main themes derived from reasons cited by these respondents for using OM’s. Various other uses of OM’s are described in the literature which includes justifi- cation of interventions to funders and the identification of opportunities for new or changed services (Grimmer et al, 2000). It could therefore indicate that the responding physiotherapists were not aware of these valuable uses of OM’s other than its use in direct clinical management. This is concerning as the majority of respondents were in fact private practitioners who are often required to motivate for payment of ser- vices or extension of treatment times with medical aids. A few respondents (n=26) indicated that the use of OM’s was mandated in the workplace. Contrary to this, a large proportion of the Canadian sample indi- cated that the use of OM’s were man- dated in their organization or service area which may have led to greater usage frequencies (Kay et al, 2001). The CSP in the UK also recently mandated the use of OM’s in a docu- ment; “Core Standards of Physio- therapy Practice” (Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, 2005). In this practice guideline it is made an explicit require- ment for members to use published, standardised OM’s in their routine clinical practice. By including the requirement within the core standards, the profile of OM’s is highlighted and reflects the increasing need for members to provide evidence on the outcome of their interventions. At present there are no legal requirements or professional incentives in South Africa encouraging physiotherapists to use OM’s. Anec- dotally however there has been a rise in 10 SA JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY 2008 VOL 64 NO 2 medical aid scheme requirements for physiotherapists to use objective tools to evaluate patient progress. Physio- therapists have also seen a motion for preferred payment of interventions with a sound evidence base from medical aid schemes in recent years. Past research has proven that passive approaches such as distribution of educational material and clinical guidelines alone do not influence physiotherapy practice, but that mandates given by funders and professional societies are more effective to bring about change in OM usage (Abrams et al, 2006). Other factors such as professional support, active education initiatives and monitoring by peer review added to the success in the previously mentioned Australian study (Abrams et al, 2006). Perceived obstacles to using outcome measures Similar to other studies, time constraints were the main obstacle to the use of OM’s (Abrams et al, 2006; Huijbregts et al, 2002; Kay et al, 2001). High clinical loads, numerous patient admissions and staff shortages resulting in dispro- portionate therapist to patient ratios as well as lack of resources are all possible reasons for therapists having insufficient time. However, it could be argued that physiotherapists, who are pressed for time to gather evidence, could motivate for more staff with hospital admini- strators using objective evidence gathered from consistent implementation of OM’s. Further study amongst this sample of predominantly private practitioners is needed to ascertain their unique diffi- culties related to time constraints. Numerous databases and strategies are available to assist clinicians to access evidence-based information and OM’s with greater ease. Examples of these electronic resources include, The “Cochrane Library” (Metcalfe et al, 2001) and “Physiotherapy Evidence Database” (PEDro) (Moseley et al, 2002). The database held at the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK for example, holds more than one hundred OM’s (Hammond, 1999). It provides useful information such as the OM’s original reference; OM reliability, validity and sensitivity; summaries of time required to complete the OM as well as training and costs involved. 2 In South Africa, health services are being decentralized and community service has become compulsory for health workers, including physio- therapists (Health Western Cape, 2005). The problems related to lack of time and resources are further compounded for these therapists as they are further removed from electronic resources and professional guidance from other thera- pists. It is therefore important that the greater physiotherapy community should become more proactive in their professional evaluation of clinical prac- tice. Physiotherapy educators, practice/ hospital managers, provincial health departments, SASP and physiotherapists themselves should be striving to imple- ment necessary support and resource structures to assist clinicians in pro- viding evidence-based practice. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Although the conclusions drawn from such a small sample is limited, the researchers were able to identify that physiotherapists seemed to be aware of OM’s, but tended to use predominantly impairment-based OM’s. As in other studies, the respondents continue to use familiar measures despite the ever-increasing number of new stan- dardized OM’s. There were three main limitations to the study. The population-based sample was restricted to physiotherapists on the email list of the SASP and the findings can therefore not be generalised to the rest of the South African physiotherapy population. Bias was introduced as access to email was a prerequisite for partici- pation and therefore a number of thera- pists were excluded. Respondents were most likely more interested in OM’s which introduces bias into responses received and therefore the results of the study. Another possible source of bias is the under-representation of certain regions; geographical as well as model of service delivery (public or state facilities). Future researchers might con- sider stratified randomized sampling of therapists registered with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) to minimize these sources of bias. The findings of this study have direct implications for physiotherapy under- graduate training and continuous profes- sional development (CPD) in South Africa. The findings could be used to motivate for the establishment of train- ing workshops by the SASP via its special interest groups in the form of compulsory OM-related workshops. The Society could also implement the following: • A series of articles on OM’s in the South African Journal of Physio therapy • A self-study electronic package on OM’s with the added incentive of CPD accreditation • Posting more information on OM’s on the SASP website, including special links to international data- bases and contact details of indi- vidual physiotherapists that are interested in OM’s. AKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank all those physio- therapists who took the time to respond to our survey as well as the SASP and its administrative staff for their cooperation and assistance in distribution of the questionnaires. We also wish to thank Dr Martin Kidd for his assistance with statistical analysis. 2 Database of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) website: http://www.ncca.org.uk SA JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY 2008 VOL 64 NO 2 11 REFERENCES Abrams D, Davidson M, Harrick J et al (2006). Monitoring the change: Current trends in outcome measure usage in physiotherapy, Manual Therapy, 11:46-53 Akinpelu AO and Eluchie NC (2006). Familiarity, knowledge, and utilization of standardized outcome measures among physiotherapists in Nigeria, Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 22(2):61-72 Aweida D and Kelsey CJ (1990). Accuracy and reliability of physical therapists in auscultat- ing tape recorded lung sounds, Physiotherapy Canada, 42 (6): 279-282 Basmajian JV and Banerjee SN (ed) (1996). Clinical Decision-making in Rehabilitation: Efficacy and outcomes, Churchill and Living- stone, New York Bohannon RW (2005). Manual muscle testing: does it meet the standards of an adequate screening test? [Electronic version], Clinical Rehabilitation, 19 (6): 662-667 Bowling A (1997). Measuring Health: A review of quality of life measurement scales (2nd ed), Oxford University Press, Buckingham Brooks D and Thomas J (1995). Interater relia- bility of Auscultation of breath sounds among physical therapists, Physical Therapy, 75 (12): 1082-1088 Brosseau L, Balmer S, Tousignant M, O’Sullivan JP, Goudreault C, Goudreault M and Gringras S (2001). Intra- and Intertester reliability and criterion validity of the paral- lelogram and universal goniometers for measuring maximum active knee flexion and extension of patients with knee restrictions, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabili- tation, 82 (3): 396-402 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (2005). Outcome measures. Retrieved November 22, 2005, from Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Web site: http://www.csp.org.uk/director/effectiveprac- tice/outcomemeasures.cfm Chesson R, Macleod M & Massie S (1996). Outcome Measures used in therapy depart- ments in Scotland, Physiotherapy, 82 (12): 673-679 Cole B, Finch E, Gowland C and Mayo N (1995). Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia Grimmer K, Beard M, Bell A, Chipchase L, Edwards E, Fulton I and Gill T (2000). On the constructs of quality physiotherapy, Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 46 (1): 3-7 Hammond R (1999). Why an outcome mea- sures database? Physiotherapy 85(5):234-235 Hammond R (2000). Evaluation of physio- therapy by measuring outcome, Physiotherapy, 86 (4): 170-172 Health Western Cape (2005). Healthcare 2010: Health Western Cape’s plan for ensuring equal access to quality health care Retrieved December 12, 2005 from Cape Gateway Web site: http://www.capegateway.gov.za/Text/2005/7/ healthcare_2010_full.doc.pdf Higgs J, Refshauge K and Ellis E (2001). Portrait of the physiotherapy profession [Electronic version], Journal of Inter- professional Care, 15 (1): 79-89 Huijbregts MPJ, Myers AM, Kay TM and Gavin TS (2002), Systematic outcome mea- surement in clinical practice: Challenges experienced by physiotherapists, Physiotherapy Canada, 54 (4): 25-31 Iles R and Davidson M (2006). Evidence-based practice: A survey of physiotherapists’ current practice, Physiotherapy Research International, 11(2):93-103 Jette AM and Jette DU (1997). Assessing Health Status Outcomes in Rehabilitation, in Assessing Medical Rehabilitation Practices- The Promise of Outcomes Research, Fuhrer MJ (ed), Paul H Brookes Publishing Co, Baltimore, pp 181-207 Jette DU, Bacon K, Batty C, Carlson M, Ferland A, Hemingway RD, Hill JC, Ogilvie L and Volk D (2003). Evidence-based Practice: Beliefs, Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behaviours of Physical therapists, Physical Therapy, 83 (9): 786-805 Kay TM, Myers AM and Huijbregts MPJ (2001). How far have we come since 1992? A comparative survey of physiotherapists’ use of outcome measures, Physiotherapy Canada, 53 (4): 268-281 Lennon S (1995). Using Standardized Scales to Document Outcome in Stroke Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy, 81 (4): 200-207 Maher C & Williams M (2005). Factors influ- encing the use of outcome measures in physiotherapy management of lung transplant patients in Australia and New Zealand, Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 21(4):201- 217 Metcalfe C, Lewin R, Wisher S, Perry S, Bannigan K and Klaber Moffett J (2001). Barriers to implementing of evidence base in four NHS therapies, Physiotherapy, 87 (8): 433-441 Moseley AM, Herbert RD, Sherrington C and Maher CG (2002). Evidence for physiotherapy: A survey of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 48 (1): 43-49 Tooth LR, McKenna KT, Smith M and O’Rourke PK (2003). Reliability of scores between stroke patients and significant others on the Reintegration to Normal Living (RNL) Index, Disability and Rehabilitation, 25 (9): 433-440 World Confederation for Physical Therapy (1999). Description of physical therapy, 14th General meeting, May, London: World Confederation for Physical therapy World Confederation for Physical Therapy (2003). Strategic Direction and Priority Issues 2003-2007 Approved at 15th General Meeting, Barcelona, Spain, 5-7 June 2003 Retrieved December 20, 2005 from World Confederation for Physical Therapy Web site: http://www.wcpt.org/common/docs/Strategic DirectionPriorityIssues2003-2007.pdf World Health Organization (2001). Inter- national classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, Short Version, World Health Organization, Geneva