Talk:Physical therapy/Archive 1

Archive 1

First comments

I have added this article to healthcare professions. This is because there is not a physiotherapist article in particular. This would be in need of revision if the situation changes --Vincej 20:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was once a therapist and left to get into computers and pharmaceutical sales. I make better money, I work better hours, I get great benifits and I can now give fantastic workout advice to my co-workers. So my investment in PT school did not pay off and anyone getting into it better have the schooling paid for by someone else to make your life livable.

I am a physiotherapist and have used it to live very comfortably in 3 countries so far (South Africa, Ireland and England). I work 35 hours a week and get 4 weeks of holidays every year. I agree that physiotherapy is not a career for everyone, especially if lots of money is one of your priorities. However, if you think you might like the look on the face of a woman who you've just helped to walk again, give it a thought.

Michael Rowe 23:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you Michael.If it is just as, the source of income that you are seeing physiotherapy,there can be lot of dissappointment but otherwise you are in a position do do good that no one else can.

Inaddition i tell you physiotherapists are responsible them selve also in not marketing and selling their services appropriately.

Sharad K.S .India -- 61.95.215.133 20:24, 3 February 2006

"to diagnose disease and disability"

i do not believe that diagnosis is within the scope of a physiotherapist. current education (at least in the UK) does not provide them with the skills to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.30.118 (talk • contribs) 24 December 2005

The scope of practise of physiotherapy varies considerable across the world. Physiotherapists are primary contact practitioners in some juristictions and therefore require diagnostic skills. By way of example, diagnostic reasoning is expected of physiotherapists in Australia, at least within their fields of expertise, e.g. the ability to diagnose the cause of musculoskeletal shoulder pain and to recognise what is non-musculoskeletal (and therefore outside the physio's expertise and requiring referral). Cheers, --Daveb 15:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Would have to agree. Diagnostic techniques such as special tests to differentiate different muscular conditions as well as diagnostic reasoning is also part of the curriculum in the Philippines. Eilu (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

Physical Therapy Diagnosis is an important concept for preventing disability and may be useful in determining Medical Necessity for Physical Therapy.

Physical Therapy Diagnosis is the only sustainable competitive advantage that distinguishes physical therapists from other professions such as athletic trainers, osteopaths, chiropractors, etc.

Outcomes will not distinguish physical therapy since many other professions employ some of the same techniques that PTs use.

My references for Physical Therapy Diagnosis are numerous and are at this blog post:

http://physicaltherapydiagnosis.blogspot.com/2007_11_18_archive.html

I look forward to joining this discussion.

Tim Richardson,PT timrichpt@physicaltherapydiagnosis.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.125.123 (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Physical therapists are not practitioners of medicine and are thus not qualified to diagnose anything. It's that simple, kids. --70.131.52.222 (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of large sections of the article

I am just reviewing an earlier edit made by 66.83.186.114. Was there any need to remove large sections of information from the article? Couldn't it have been more advantageous to move the excess information to a new article page? Right now it seems like the current version of the article is extremely pale compared to the earlier version, and lacking information that would make the article more useful - categories, related links, references etc. Anyone else agree or disagree? -- Permafrost 06:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal PT & Science

This section was removed as it is biased and not balanced. While it may have several references they are not balanced. The intent of discusing evidenced based practice, or lack there of, appears to be to disparage an entire profession. The content isbetter plced in an article on evidence based practice not in one describing a profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.130.44 (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you the same user who removed the content yesterday? I posted a message to the previous IP address. In any event you could find that message [[1]]There are established guidelines for adding and removing content from wikipedia. Some of the relevant guidelines can be found at WP:RS and WP:V. You are not allowed to remove text just because you don't like it. Please undo your edit. You might consider creating an account for yourself and adding source data to create balance were you believe it's lacking. But unilaterally removing text that is verifiable, pertinent to the topic, and from reliable sources is not allowed. --Anthon01 (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The content is not pertinent to the topic as presented. As presented it appears to have an agenda of disparaging the profession. If the material is not neutral it should be removed. The guidelines regarding well referenced sources do not apply to content that is not neutral or not appropriate for the article. 24.63.148.5 (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a sourced statement that refutes the text? On wikipedia we are allowed to add text that is sourced, verifiable and not original research. The text in question conforms to all three reqirements. The content is totally appropriate to the topic. If you have a source that refutes the claims made by my citations, you can add them to the text. But you cannot remove well sourced text. Wikipedia is not a brochure or a self promotional service. It is an encyclopedia. --Anthon01 (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical note: Anthon01 was confirmed to have used a sock (Special:Contributions/JacobLad) to make the discussed article edits. That account was then blocked using this summary: "blocked "JacobLad (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of infinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: anthon01, proven by cu)"

The matter is discussed here. -- Fyslee / talk 14:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Content removed

I have removed a set of sections, none of which had any sources at all, which contained what appear to me to be personal opinion. Feel free to reinsert once it is correctly sourced, but not until, thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop reinserting it. Being "general" does not excuse being unreferenced. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence in need of a citation. It has hanging on the page with a fact tag for the last 3 months. The move towards the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) professional postbaccalaureate degree indicates increased awareness of and training in the sciences, research, and interventions. Anthon01 (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Guy (JzG). Good call. --Eustress (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Physical therapist management Section

Currently this section seems kind of pointless. Can it be elaborated upon or could it be merged elsewhere? --Eustress (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No one has commented, so I am removing it. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Professional Organizations

I added a section on professional organizations in direct relation to the PT profession. I obviously have not added all - mostly egocentric additions except the Singapore PT association.

JlharrisDPT (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between this section and the National associations under the External links below? --Eustress (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can JlharrisDPT or anyone who can answer my previous question? Otherwise, the new section should probably be deleted, especially since JlharrisDPT has explained his conflict of interest. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Fyslee has removed the comments under discussion. --Eustress (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess there was no difference. Just thought it deserved more prominence and not just an "oh, btw, rummage through these links if you like" that the "external links" seems to portray. Also, Eustress, please get off the COI thing. Is your point to drive away ANYONE with expert knowledge in this area? It would be like deleting anything Einstein would post on physics because of COI. Come on. JlharrisDPT (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy

I'm unsure the full reason for removing this section. It is by far the most common practice area of physical therapy. References have been given. Please do not just eliminate the whole section if one disagrees with one part of it. Leave feedback here as to why so it can be openly discussed. Thank. JlharrisDPT (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that JzG deleted the section because there were previously no citations to support it, so thank you for your additions; however, there are a few things regarding your additions that I'm hoping you can address. For example, the first statement, "Musculoskeletal (Orthopaedic) physiotherapists are able to diagnose, treat and help with prevention of pain/pathology, using the range of techniques outlined below," is not even mentioned directly in the citation you've referenced--at least not directly to musculoskeletal PT. Can you refine this phrase to match the reference or find another one?

Also, the next two statements do not have any references: "A number of therapeutic modalities are available in physical therapy. These include exercise prescription (strength, motor control, stretching,proprioception training, and endurance), manual therapy techniques like joint mobilization/manipulation, and soft tissue massage. Also, various forms of "electrophysical agents" are utilized (such as cryotherapy, heat therapy, iontophoresis and electrotherapy)." I will tag them accordingly for now, but I'm hoping you can provide some more clarification and citations--Wikipedia is not a forum for original research and opinions. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well it looks like User:Fyslee and User:JzG too had issues with your addition and it has been removed. If you would like to propose it be re-added, please rework the section on this talk page and get approval before adding again, because it appears that a few users have objections with the addition. Hope this is reasonable. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Frustrating. Would like to see User:Fyslee and User:JzG post in the discussion as to what their problem is (with the info in the section). "A number of modalities are available..." statement is a Common_knowledge statement and therefore requires no citation. It's like saying the sun in bright. As a physical therapist, educated at a doctoral level, practicing in the musculoskeletal realm, I can tell you that those (in the US) are commonly used modalities. Now, from the first part regarding "diagnose, treat, prevent.." the citation provided states first line "Physical therapists (PTs) are health care professionals who diagnose and treat individuals" (emphasis added) and "..develop a plan using treatment techniques to promote the ability to move, reduce pain, restore function, and prevent disability.."(emphasis added). You're nitpicking regarding "..at least not directly to musculoskeletal PT" as we are all musculoskeletal PT's. So, I will restore the section (minus the initial section intro that I believe User:Fyslee removed. I thank User:Fyslee for helping fix the editing (eg technical) errors I made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JlharrisDPT (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My fault, I missed were you asked that I post the reworked version here. I ended up editing and reposting on the PT page. I apologize for doing so. I do hope I've addressed your concerns. Although would like JzG to post his specific concerns (if any remain) here before wiping out THE WHOLE section. Thanks for the understanding. JlharrisDPT (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can see part of the problem now. If all PTs are musculoskeletal PTs, then musculoskeletal physical therapy is not a specialty and does not belong in this section. (And if you make a posting mistake in the future, Jl, remember that you can (and should have in this case) undo your own edit!) --Eustress (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is a "specialty". The point is that all people have muscle and bones. It's kind of a all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. It's hard to strictly work ONLY in one area. Actually, in the PT profession, it would be impossible. I work in Orhopaedics which includes Musculoskeletal physical therapy. I also see a lot of patients that fall into neurological and integumentary (wound care). In fact, in all these "specialties" or as they are called in the profession "Practice Patterns" diagnose, treat and prevent. So, maybe this referenced statement should be placed somewhere more appropriate instead of just in the musculoskeletal section. What is everyone else's thoughts?JlharrisDPT (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PT pictures?

Can anyone get some pertinent pictures to put on this page? Maybe of a client doing some exercises, a patient receiving ultrasound treatment, etc. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Will look for some pictures. Definitely NO ultrasound though, LOL. Please. The "magic wand" as I call it has been shown only to do 3 things 1. Heat tissue, 2. Help with Carpal tunnel 3. Help with calcific tendonosis. Does nothing for pain, which it tends to be widely used for by non evidence based practicioners. JlharrisDPT (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've placed the best that I could find on Wikicommons on here at the top. Unfortunately, it's a little 'dated'. Regards, CycloneNimrod^talk? 09:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ref improvement

There is a ref in the Physical therapy#Evidence-based practice. I would like to gain consensus to format the ref. Which ref template do Wikipedians prefer for this ref.[2] QuackGuru 03:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all the refs in the article pretty much need to be reformatted according to WP:Cite. I think Template:Cite web will be most applicable to this page. If we all pitch in, it wouldn't take too much effort and the article might get closer to GA status. --Eustress (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Bridges PH, Bierema LL, Valentine T (2007). "The propensity to adopt evidence-based practice among physical therapists". BMC Health Serv Res. 7 (103). doi:10.1186/1472-6963-7-103. PMID 17615076.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) For journals, I think this template works best. QuackGuru 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I went through and templated the citations, using Magnus' and Diberri's tools for generating cite web/journal/etc. style citations. I did remove one reference which is unclear, as it is just a link to a whole series of references itself Real Time Ultrasound - Resources. It was already one of four citations in the Orthopedic specialty area, and wasn't really a meta-analysis, and was specific itself so I pulled it. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

This article is obviously written by someone with an interest in denegrating Physiotherapists. (Perhaps a Chiropractor?) Physiotherapy has higher levels of evidence based practice than most other health care professions. Refer to the Australian Physiotherapy Association guidelines my friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natrick76 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Geographic scope: Title change

Shouldn't this article be called physiotherapy, if that is the most widespread name for the field? I don't understand how something should be renamed because of one country. Either way it is quite clear that this article needs work to be expanded to address physiotherapy in the entire world, not just the united states. cyclosarin (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that once the article does scope for the whole world. At the moment it's almost entirely US based meaning it should be called physical therapy. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the physio vs. physical therapy point is a valid one. One thing to consider is that this is posted in the English version of Wikipedia and therefore seems as though the focus would be on physio/physical therapy in the English speaking world (English national language). This would include (not all inclusive) US, Canada, Australia, Great Britian. Of course, again, the US is the only one that names this profession as "physical therapists". Side note, originally it was physiotherapy in the US, but changed for unknown reason to me. JlharrisDPT (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects by tomorrow, i'll move the page to Physiotherapy and change the article to fit accordingly. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 08:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how I could complain about that. A question, though: Could the current "Physical Therapy" page remain or redirect to the "Physiotherapy" page?JlharrisDPT (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Philippines uses both; "Physical Therapy" is the official and more widespread term but some PT's prefer to use "physiotherapy" because it sounds better (and also because the layman tends to think of physical therapy = massage) Eilu (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the title to reflect the title change discussion. It came as a shock that the article's title had been changed. Such an important change should have been the subject of an RfC. -- Fyslee / talk 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I was the one who moved the page (or requested that Jfdwolff moved it) and did so out of quite a clear consensus that it should be moved. Physical therapy, by anyone's standards, is an inappropriate name for the article since it only addresses a few nations. Physiotherapy is by far the more used title and as such it should have been moved. I'm sorry if you felt this was inappropriate. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a pretty expansive statement to say physiotherapy is more common. I would argue physiotherapy is secondary. The name of the world body representing the profession is "World Confederation for Physical Therapy" Non-english speaking cultures use terminology in their own language. So, the discussion is really btwn english speaking countries. IMHO the title of the article should be consistent with the name of the organization which represents the profession across the globe.24.218.131.73 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Physical Therapy" is the adopted term by the World Confederation for Physical Therapy which represents 101 countries. "The World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) is an international non-profit professional organisation founded in 1951. The Confederation is supported by subscriptions from its 101 Member Organisations and through them it represents over 300,000 physical therapists worldwide.

Membership

WCPT is a confederation of national physical therapy associations. Only one national organisation per country may be in membership."[1]

Clearly the representives of over 300,000 PTs worldwide have decided the preferred term is physical therapy and physical therapist. It is not "almost entirely US-used term."

Google "physical therapy" and 19,100,000 hits return. Google "physiotherapy" and 6,650,000 hits return.

Physical therapy is the preferred and most commonly used term. The title of the article should be reverted back to Physical Therapy which has been the title for many years.DoctorDW (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I find DoctorDW's arguments compelling and support a return to "Physical Therapy" as the title of the article. The terms "physiotherapy" and "physiotherapist" should still be used in the sections relating to countries where that is the preferred usage, which is quite a few, mostly with relatively small membership numbers. The WCPT's choice of terminology should dictate the name of the article. -- Fyslee / talk 19:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Continue below:

• Support "Physical Therapy" as the title of the article.

Yay

This article was selected at the WP Medicine Collaboration of the week. It will be nice to get some outsider help hopefully! --Eustress (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence-based practice

Quackguru: There is no need to have the evidence based practice language in 2 sections of the page. You did not give a reason for reverting the deletion of one of them. The duplication will be removed again. If you have an issue discuss it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.131.73 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should reflect the body of the article. If you have an issue with the material, then rewrite the deleted text and we can improve the article. QuackGuru 08:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quackguru - An introduction should serve as an overview, you are correct. However, the introduction and EBP sections contained a lot of the same content and not just "EBP is an issue" then cover that in the specific section. One or both need to be trimmed down as to not be redundant. JlharrisDPT (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. We have an entire section on Physiotherapy#Evidence-based practice. The lead should discuss evidence-based. QuackGuru 05:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How to create a good lead

To produce a decent lead for any article, I have a rule of thumb that ensures proper coverage in the WP:LEAD:

• If a topic deserves a section heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead.

Here is a table that can be used to help in creating and managing the lead. Just add the headings and create short summaries of the entire contents of the sections. The final result is created by placing all that content in one big paragraph in the order it is found in the table. Then make appropriate paragraphs out of it, and make appropriate changes so it flows as brilliant prose.

Habitat	bla bla bla
Anatomy	bla bla bla
Population	bla bla bla
Reindeer and humans	bla bla bla
Subspecies	bla bla bla
Reindeer in fiction	bla bla bla
Miscellaneous	bla bla bla

Each item should contain no more than one or two sentences that sum up the basic idea of each section in the article that has a section heading. The whole thing can then be lumped together and divided up into two to four paragraphs.

There should not be anything in the lead that doesn't refer to specific content in the article. There should not be any elaboration or detail in the lead. Elaboration should be in the body of the article, not in the lead. Sum each section up in two to four sentences, and use them in the lead.

Keeping references out of the lead makes the lead easier to read. The explanatory and more detailed text with the refs are found in the article. I don't know of any policy or guideline regarding including refs in the lead, one way or the other, so it's a matter of taste....;-) Since refs are used to document specific content, and since the lead is a short summation in a generalized format, I would see the use of refs in the lead as a duplication of effort. If there are any refs in the lead, they should be kept to a minimum. If a ref is required in the lead, then that might be a symptom that something is being introduced there that is not in the body, which would be improper.

Because articles change and grow, the lead should reflect those changes and be revised accordingly.

Otherwise I think the lead should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article. When they read the article they should not encounter any significant information that was not alluded to in the lead, IOW they should not be totally surprised. If they are then it should be mentioned in the lead.

Wikipedia articles should cover all notable aspects of a subject from all notable POV. When our readers have read an article and then talk to others about the subject, they should be able to always answer "Of course, I already read about that at Wikipedia." They should at least have a basic knowledge of all aspects of a subject, enough to discuss it and not be totally surprised by what someone else tells them. -- Fyslee / talk 06:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Modalities and Techniques

it was mentioned during voting that they should be briefly listed and discussed, with links to other articles as needed. Since there are a LOT of techniques, I think we should go with broader categories, maybe something along the lines of:

A PT may use several methods and techniques in treating a patient depending on condition
* Thermal Modalities (HMP, diathermy, cold packs, US)- used in controling pain and swelling
* Massage, manipulation- for muscle spasms, nodules
* Other modalities (traction, TENS, ES)
* Exercise- stretching to improve ROM, strengthening to correct mm imbalance; also sport/activity-specific training
* Major schools- McKenzie, Williams, Mulligan, Motor Learning, Brunnstrum, Bobath...

I'm just rattling things off the top of my head at the moment, though I have sources at hand (Braddom, DeLisa, Kisner & Colby, Carr & Shepherd). What do you guys think? Eilu (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Direct access

The question of direct access (without medical referral by an MD) in the US needs to be addressed:

• Medicare Direct Access
• Direct Access Laws by State
• Google search of APTA website

I don't have the time right now. -- Fyslee / talk 14:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In what way do you think it needs to be addressed? Mention that the majority of states allow it in some form? or that MDCR requires a MD/DO signature on plan of care to proceed? or how access to PT in the states differs from other countries? JlharrisDPT (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Those all sound like legitimate options. There should be enough good sources to make a short paragraph of 2-3 sentences, or something like that. I'm not familiar enough with the American PT scene to do it justice, but I think it should be mentioned. -- Fyslee / talk 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

patients vs people wording

The medicine manual of style directs articles not to use the word 'patient' but rather 'person' etc. I was going to apply this to the article and reword accordingly, but since this is an article on a type of therapy and patient may be apt would like a second opinion before I go ahead ? LeeVJ (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Patient in this context would be no more 'apt' than in any other medical context, so go right ahead :) Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 13:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done LeeVJ (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Physical therapy isn't medicine, so it doesn't even have a theoretical claim to the word 'patient'. --70.131.52.222 (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Any professional in the medical field who works with patients knows them as patients, and preferably treats them as individual people. Whether one chooses to term them patients or people doesn't change the fact that professionals may term them "patients", and insurance certainly does. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Cardiopulmonary" specialty

Is this really a single specialty, or are cardiac and respiratory separate specialties? Axl (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cardiopulm is consider one "practice pattern" and not 2 separate entities. JlharrisDPT (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

risk-benefit

When compared with treatment options such as physiotherapeutic exercise, the risk-benefit balance does not favor spinal manipulation. Or: Physiotherapeutic exercise is safer than spinal manipulation.

Here is some information that might be useful for this article. QuackGuru 07:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is some evidence that there is a very low incidence of serious adverse events after thrust manipulation of the cervical spine only. Thrust manipulaton of the thoracic and lumbar spine is not associated with significant risk. Non-thrust manipulation has not been shown to present a risk in any region of the spine. To place the relative risk in perspective there is a multifold higher risk associated with OTC NSAIDS.24.218.131.73 (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Health Professionals

Are Chiropractors really 'health professionals' what with the unhealthy stroke causing?--Iclavdivs (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking, but "health professional" is the common term used for most health care jobs. More specific terms used are allied health (nurses, physical therapists, resp therapists, occupational and speech therapists) and mid levels (nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse anesthetists). ChillyMD (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support "Physical Therapy" as the title of the article.

• Support a return to "Physical Therapy" as the title of the article. See DoctorDW's arguments in section above. -- Fyslee / talk 19:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it back. JFW | T@lk 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Argument re world body is good, use of Google seems poor. PubMed perhaps a better comparison "physical therapy"=33,333 vs "Physiotherapy"=95,110 and "physical therapist"=933 vs "physiotherapist"=1026. Anyway we do not in medical topics always use the commonest lay term (as set out in WP:MEDMOS), hence we have myocardial infarction (Google=7,450,000) rather than "heart attack" which is a redirect (yet Goggle=20,800,000). Likwise "tylenol"= 7,200,000 vs "acetaminophen"=5,990,000 vs "paracetamol"=3,900,000.

As this webpage from the European Region page of the WCPT explains, it was an amalgamation with the Standing Liaison Committee of Physiotherapists of the EU in 1998 and "With this merger the Physiotherapy Profession gained a strong single representative organisation..." (bolding mine). Indeed another of the European Regions pages ([3]) indicates that the "PT" in "WCPT" is not necessarily always "Physical Therapy", see where it starts "The European Region of the World Confederation of Physiotherapists (ER-WCPT) provides information ..." and the forthcoming meeting in September is titled European Congress on Physiotherapy Education. As the European charter(PDF) sets out in Article 1, the organisation name is supposed to be "The European Region of The World Confederation for Physical Therapy", yet Article 2 describes itself as "organisation of professional associations of physiotherapists". Consider if that organisation had chosen to call itself "World association of combined exercise related and manually applied therapy" (WACERMAT) would we rename this article to "exercise related and manually applied therapy" a term in itself used nowhere, but which is none the less an approximate description ?

Searching for other international organisations, we can find International Federation of Sports Physiotherapy (IFSP) (see description here)

I remain dubious whether the world organisaton name for itself necessarily means the actual practice worldwide is best known in English-speaking areas more as "physical therapy" rather than "physiotherapy". The article is US centric in its initial description with the leadin stating "Also known as Physiotherapy in some english speaking countries"[4] yet the later Education section uses "physiotherapy" in 14 out of 16 country descriptions including United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and The Republic of Ireland - what other major English-speaking countries are we missing then from this list to make it "some english speaking countries" rather than the "majority" apart from the US ? I think I'll be bold and change the word so David Ruben ^Talk 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well argued. — CycloneNimrod  ^Talk? 12:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No one has suggested physiotheapy is not used in many places around the world. The citation from the WCPT above seems to take the issue out of context. From the Charter it states "The name of the organisation shall be the EUROPEAN REGION OF THE WORLD CONFEDERATION FOR PHYSICAL THERAPY (WCPT)" The Pubmed citatin is also wrong. Physical Therapy = 33,405 Physiotherapy = 11,909. DoctorDW (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with using physiotherapy, based on the above discussions. It seems contradictory that a professional organization (perhaps not the only international one) uses a term not used in its member countries. As an aside, pubmed only proves that it is commonly used in the American literature. The article also has a definate US bias in discussing its practice. I'd be in favor of using the more globally accepted term, physiotherapist, myself. Fuzbaby (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

With 19 million citations and thousands of journals a significant porton of which are published outside the US Pubmed is the most comprehensive source of published biomedical studies in the english lanaguage. Pubmed is not limited to the US. Pubmed reflects what is published in english. Given this article is the english version the use of Pubmed accurately reflects usage in english. The WCPT is the only world organization for physical therapy. The article cites the WCPT and reflects physical therapy around the world. One only has to look at the extensive list of countries in the article where the education differs. More evidence if the article was not accurate editors would edit it to reflect international practiceDoctorDW (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why of course they would. After all, I'm sure sooo many english speaking wiki editors are from Poland (etc.). And I'm sure that pubmed, and the scientific literature in general, isn't dominated by the US...as an FYI, pubmed catogorizes high impact articles not in english, and also translated abstracts...anyways...an interesting example of pubmed's US centric view is to look at the word epinephrine versus adrenaline. Almost identical number of hits, yet epinephrine is only used in the US. In any event, I'm only putting forth a vote, as physiotherapy is clearly the dominant term outside of the US. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Vibration Therapy

This section was removed. Vibration Therapy is not a specialty of PT, at most one could argue it is a treatment. Though the literature is lacking. The information was not cited. The information appears to be commercially driven. DoctorDW (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

McKenzie Method

Link to McKenzie method was removd because it is commercial. It promotes a business. Listing of treatment interventions should be described in neutral terms. For example osteopathic manipulation should be manipulation. Another example would be Cyriax cervical manipulation should be described as cervical traction with rotation.DoctorDW (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wikipedia http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_management

Certainly Sports Physical Therapy is a common specialty in many countries and I would support including it int the article if someone wants to add it. I don't know how widely Pain Management is practiced.DoctorDW (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-Patient Care roles

I inserted the following language sometime ago "Physical therapists also practice in non-patient care roles such as health policy, health insurance, health care administration and as health care executives. Physical therapists are involved in the medical-legal field serving as experts, performing peer review and independent medical examinations." Apparently an editor does not think the refs support the text and feels it is spam. What are the thoughts of others?DoctorDW (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither reference links to an article on the topic. If you feel these links verify material with reliable sources, could you begin by explaining what the two references are supposed to be verifying? --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jpb56. Peer reviewers: Desideria24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Difficulty understanding for outsider

I just wanted to chime in and say that as someone who has not had any involvement with physical therapy (and was brought to this page from just clicking through Wikipedia), after reading this article, I still have no idea what exactly physical therapy is. There is a lot of info on who physical therapists are as far as their education and their interaction with other health professionals, but still, what exactly is physical therapy? Gd8775 (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Massage" has got to go !

I would like to propose that the current definition of "massage" as it is stated, should be changed. If it is, as it remains, we should include in the "massage" section, physiotherapy, osteopathy, chiropractic, even possibly nursing, among others. What I propose is that all the so-called massage techniques become "bodywork" - "massage" is a type of bodywork, as is physiotherapy, as is shiatsu, as is soft tissue therapy etc., etc., as such, it should be listed among the types of bodywork, rather than being a specific category in itself. The term "massage" is pretty much defunct now, it seems to include ANY technique that involves touching a person, and that they not be a physio, osteo, or chiro. I will post this propsal about the various bodywork discussions for some feedback. I think that Wiki is a great starting point to delineate and structure the types of bodywork that exist around the world. (Euripides 03:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

Well, 6 years later Massage Envy is practically as big as KFC-- so the term "massage" is pretty much *in vogue* now! Yes, the MTs are trying to divide the health world in half: Surgeons and Massage Therapists. And they wish to replace CBT (psychotherapy) too. They sure don't lack confidence. Of course massage is *heart and hands* and eventually the voracious MTs will be re-classified as some sort of PT and earn their Health Insurance Reimbursements (say by earning a 4 yr degree)-- but right now there are only a few States (USA) who have not caved in to them. TheLordSayeth (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with moving toward terms like "bodywork" or "manual therapy" instead of massage. Massage is more appropriately used for simple mechanical squeezing of the muscles, or superficial rubbing. Specific therapeutic intervention is better described by "bodywork" or "manual therapy." Or by stating the specific method being used, such as MET or Shiatsu or whatever. --Karinpower (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Prescriptive Authority

I'm curious if Physical Therapists (DPT's) have prescriptive authority to write for medicines related and beneficial to their scope of practice (muscle relaxants, anti-inflammatory, pain meds, etc.). I seem to recall hearing that within the U.S.A. PT's have limited prescriptive authority but it depends on the State where they practice and that PT's practicing within the U.S. Military do have prescriptive authority. It would make sense. It might be interesting to include in the article since many people, even if wrongly so, seem to believe that only "real" doctors are able to prescribe medicine (even though, at least in the U.S.A., MD's aren't the only prescribers and even some non-doctor professionals also have prescriptive authority- such as Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.42.16 (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And also Podiatric Physicians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.239.158 (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a very good question, but unfortunately I haven't seen much literature on the prescriptive powers of the DPT, much less in a military setting. I know from the experience of working in a Navy hospital that DPTs in the military are allowed to do spinal OMTs, and they use topically applied dexamethasone (usually by way of iontophoresis), but we had to seek clarification whether DPTs are allowed to prescribe the dex themselves or require a prescription from a GMO. I can't write any of this into the article, of course, because WP would consider it WP:OR, but I'll see if I can find some WP:RS literature on it. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Kinesiotherapy

There seems to be a merge to be done with Kinesiotherapy. I believe that the reason for those two sets of articles partly comes from a translation discrepancy, and for cultural reasons. In France & Belgium, Physical therapists are called Kinesiotherapists. In French-speaking Switzerland and Quebec, those professionals are called Physical therapists. To complicate things further, French people believe that Physiotherapy is a subset of Kinesiotherapy (namely, if I am right -- not being an expert myself -- physiotherapy seems to be used to describe part of orthopedic therapy: electrical muscle stimulation, sonography, etc...).

If I'm right, at the time of creation of the first schools, France and Belgium decided to generalize the Physiotherapist term to a more generic "Kinesiotherapist" word. Merge and explain? ;) NicDumZ ~ 06:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Second merger

The merger discussed above took place in early 2013. The old page was made into a redirect (here), but has recently been restored. The restored page is little more than a dictionary definition of the term "kinesiotherapy". Therefore, I'm proposing that it be re-merged here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC) NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not opposed to merge the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeandédé (talk • contribs) 13:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Jeandédé. I proposed the merger because I saw that you had undone a prior merger without discussion, and I thought that the editors of this page should have an opportunity to comment. But it's been more than a week and no one here has weighed in, so I presume that your actions were not controversial. I'll withdraw the proposal. My apologies for any inconvenience this might have caused you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Education section cleanup?

It seems to me the Education section could use cleanup. In particular the long lists of lettered items under "Curriculum related to Patient/Client Management..." are hard (for me) to read. Either the content of each bullet could be summarized, or the lists could be reformatted.

Instead of:

• General topic 1: blah blah blah. Blah includes a. blah, b. blah, c. blah...
• General topic 2: blah blah blah. Blah includes a. blah, b. blah, c. blah...

etc.

this might be better:

• General topic 1: blah blah blah. Blah includes
  • Blah blah
  • Blah blah
  • Blah blah
• General topic 2: blah blah blah. Blah includes
  • Blah blah
  • Blah blah
  • Blah blah

etc.

So, summarize, reformat or leave it alone? I am willing to take this on if others think it would be useful. Dedrick (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Almost no mention of pain?

I am not a trained medical practitioner. My only interaction with PT was as a patient. My main symptom was sciatica from a ruptured L5-S1 disc. Yes, I had movement issues but pain was the reason I had to be hospitalized. I was treated successfully (intra-dural? injection) by a Sports Medicine Orthopedist. I was under the impression that in my case my PT instruction was to control / avoid pain and secondarily to enhance movement. I don't understand why this Wikipedia article almost totally omits pain remediation as an objective of PT. TheLordSayeth (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Efficiency?

Are there any study showing the efficiency of physical therapy? Is there a debate on how much of a placebo some techniques linked with physical therapy are?

Is physical therapy 100% scientific? Proven? Efficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.14.168.181 (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You can read the source here. QuackGuru (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So the only discussion of physical therapy effectiveness in this article is a discussion of how they can effectively treat back pain with a type of chiropractic therapy (spine manipulation)? What about the effectiveness of ultrasound? or heat packs, or athletic tape? These are the therapies I get when I go to the physical therapist. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:791F:F47:6775:AFBB (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Physical Rehabilitation Technicians

I was wondering if we should add a section on the educational requirements in the province of Quebec, where physiotherapists must complete a bachelor's degree plus a master's degree to have access to the profession. There is also the fact that several CEGEPs in the province, such as Dawson College and Collège Montmorency, offer career/technical programs that lead to the profession of a physical rehabilitation technician (or in French, "thérapeute en réadaptation physique"). These people must not be mixed up with physiotherapist assistants or aides because they are considered professionals all over Canada. --MaxAMSC (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Military Physiotherapists

Do you think another section should be made on the profession of a military physiotherapist? Their education, responsibilities, etc. could be explained. --MaxAMSC (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The sentence in the opening section that states that physical therapists work at times with occupatonal therapists and speech therapists is unneeded. They also work with MDs, DOs, DPMs, DMDs, DDSs, DCs, NPs, RNs, COTAs, CNAs, social workers, and other clinicians. Other pages explaining other professions do not have the other professions listed. What is more is that by degree a 'speech therapist' graduates with a degree in speech language pathology. For this to be an accurate encyclopedia that should be reflected. {Equanimous1 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Equanimous1 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupational therapists and speech therapists are closely related to physiotherapists since they are careers in rehabilitation. By the way, the above careers are linked in the article to make the encyclopedia more accurate... If the reader needs more information, s/he clicks on the link. You should read Wikipedia's guidelines before contributing to any article because your contributions could be interpreted in a wrong way... Take the time to mention the correction on the article's talk page next time. --MaxAMSC (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I hope you are aware that, when a patient receives physiotherapy services, s/he is ALWAYS followed by an MD, an RN, and, in most cases with few exceptions, a psychologist. Physiotherapists that work in the field of dentistry with DMDs and DDSs are very rare.--MaxAMSC (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As a physical therapist who has been working for the last 18 months in a given setting I have not once worked with an occupational therapist or speech language pathologist. The idea that a physical therapist will always work with those professions is a myopic one. In some settings working with OTs and SLPs is routine but to the novice reader they may think that this is always the case, when in fact it is not. When a patient receives physical therapy they are not always followed by an MD, DO, ?RN, or other clinician. The previous setting that I worked in had roughly 60 percent of the patients coming in with patient self referral (direct access) where there was no referring clinician. I also have never received a referral from an RN nor would they be legally allowed to sign a plan of care for a medicare patient. I mean no harm but the sentence is unneeded and should be removed. (Equanimous1 (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC))

I think I should mention that I am a physiotherapist (BSc, MSc) and kinesiologist (BSc, MSc) in Quebec. I have 11 years of experience, and I teach undergraduate students at university. First of all, RNs (must have a specialized BSc) do not refer patients to PHTs, they follow their progress, like MDs. Trust me, it is legal, and they are trained to do that. Second, in Quebec, patients receiving PHT services must be followed by MDs (very few exceptions). Third, patients that have direct access consult private clinics, they cannot come to hospitals without referal from MDs. --MaxAMSC (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In America RNs do not have to have a BSc. There are 3 entry points to obtain an RN. One of them allows for a RN, BSN. (Equanimous1 (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC))

I think I should mention that I teach in a post doctoral residency and as well I am a physical therapist (DPT, OCS, CSCS). In Canada I have been told that direct access is growing. One of my colleague went to teach a class on patient self referral (direct access) in Canada. This has been due in part to a change in payer source and clinics having to turn to other sources for patients such as patient self referral. Patients can come to a hospital outpatient facility with self referral in America and in acute settings no referral is needed to initiate physical therapy services. I am unsure of the laws of in Canada. Back to the original edit. The last sentence in unneeded and presents an inaccurate view of a profession that works in many different settings. Again this is a myopic view and not the best way to accurately portray the profession of physical therapy. For the neophyte reader they should understand that settings may be very different, a physical therapist may work with multiple clinicians, and a physical therapist may never see an OT or SLP. (Equanimous1 (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC))

In Quebec, laws are different than in the rest of Canada, which has laws that differ from the US.

Since the article is general, I will remove the mentionned sentence in the opening paragraph.

By the way, I also obtained my MD (I know what I'm talking about when it comes to patient referal in the province of Quebec). --MaxAMSC (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Actually I (a PT) think the mention of OTs and ST (SLPs) in the lead was appropriate, since every "rehab department" includes all three professions. It's a useful bit of information, whereas the current wording ("other medical services") is too general to be of worth. It's now just a "duh" statement. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Most rehabilitation departments, if not all, offer OT and SLP services at the same time as PT services. I'll fix the sentence, hoping it will satisfy both arguments... --MaxAMSC (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better. BTW, I had deliberately removed the "See also" links for OT and SLP because they are already wikilinked. That's standard practice. I see you have (inadvertently?) restored them. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

They're removed now. Since I added them in the top sentence, they are unneeded in the "See also" internal links. --MaxAMSC (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that PTs work with OTs and SLPs but this is a myopic view of the profession. According to a 2010 demographic profile from the APTA 20.9 % of PTs in the work force work in a Health system or hospital-based outpatient facility or clinic, 33.6% work in a Private outpatient office or group practice, 9.6 % work in an academic institution, .5 % work in a Health and wellness facility, .2 % work in a Research center, and .5% work in industry. The remaining PTs work in acute care, long term care, home care, with the school system, Inpatient rehab, and in 'other settings'. This leaves 65.3% of physical therapists who may never work with an OT or SLP on a daily basis. The remaining 34.7% may or may not work with OT's, SLPs, MDs, DOs, DPMs etc. To the neophyte reader they should understand that the majority of those practicing physical therapy do not work with OTs or SLPs. Perhaps this was the case in times past and if working in certain settings that may be a persons point of view but it is not the currently the case for most PTs. I would cite the reference article above but it is for members only of the APTA. [[Equanimous1 (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)]]

As the editor who added the sentence diff, perhaps I should state my rationale. The sentence, as I wrote it, started with the key phrase in many settings. This statement makes no pretensions of applying to the whole of the physical therapy profession. Obviously PTs do not work side-by-side with OTs and/or SLPs in all settings, and I myself do not currently work in a setting involving OT or ST, though I have worked in such settings before, including skilled nursing facilities. The key link is that OT and ST are other allied health professions that frequently work together in interdepartmental settings, hospital "rehab dept" settings and often in home health settings, and the link is also recognized by MediCare, who bases RUG levels on the combined efforts of these three disciplines. I suppose if you wanted to add the phrase "but many PT settings do not involve OT or ST," that would be acceptable, though it would be redundant, as the phrase "in many settings" already indicates that the statement is not all-inclusive. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Travel Physical Therapy

Added a section on travel physical therapy in the specialty area. I'm new to Wikipedia -- please check it and make sure I followed form properly. :-) OnwardOGH (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This section was removed, but I see no explanation for doing so. Why has this happened?

Because of the rising need for qualified physical therapists, many healthcare and physical therapy facilities have opted to hire travel occupational therapists. These PTs agree to work temporary assignments, often out of state, to fill an existing staffing void. A typical assignment runs between 8 and 26 weeks, with work weeks consisting of 36-40 hours.

Travel physical therapists typically enjoy much higher wages: $113,500/year for travelers, versus $70,700/year for their permanent-position counterparts. Travel therapists working with agencies will also enjoy benefits such as free housing, health/medical insurance, travel reimbursement, loyalty bonuses, and a 401k plan.

While a common choice, working with an agency is not a requirement; they may also choose to work as an IC (Independent Contractor). In this scenario, the traveling physical therapist retains the fees and profit that the agency would have earned, but they also take on the tasks of managing their own housing arrangements, benefits, taxes, and so on. An IC may also have their pay come in a less consistent fashion -- the delay in pay from their hiring facility can be as much as 45 days.

Travel Physical therapists most commonly enter the specialty at the age of 21-30(43%), or over the age of 50 (22%). Location (49%) and salary (28%) are cited as the biggest draws for travel physical therapists when selecting a position.

OnwardOGH (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources

this really does vary a lot. depending on where you are situ. I know my husband is on the road a lot and there is very little diff in pay packets between him and his perm colleagues.Docsim (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Physical therapy / physiotherapy

User:PhysioPlanet, I have reverted some of your edits because they didn't improve the article and/or violated our manual of style. For example, wikilinking physical therapists in the Physical therapy article was a self-referencing wikilink. Redirects are often bolded, as in the case you changed.

What I can't figure out is how you managed to remove the existing redirect at Physiotherapist without any discussion. That's not allowed. It's an old decision that both Physical therapist and Physiotherapist are supposed to redirect to Physical therapy and any content merged into the main article.

If you disagree, let's discuss it here rather than edit war. Per WP:BRD, I have Reverted your Bold edit, and now we need to Discuss until a consensus is reached. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Other perspectives needed

I am a physio in Australia mainly in occupational health and safety. can someone please tell me how we can bring some other countries perspectives into this article. it seems very slanted toward the united states of america only. opening section of this article talks exclusively of united states and legislation. can we introduce other regions like asia pacific.Docsim (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who is attending undergraduate school to potentially attend graduate school studying to be a physical therapist, I think there are some things that could be clarified when it comes to what physical therapy is exactly. I think I have enough background knowledge on the topic that I have dug into other sources as well as personal experience around the field, but for outsiders who are beginning to learn about the topic, they could still stray from the article feeling a little less than more knowledgeable. I think the first paragraph with the broad overview isn't bad at all, but maybe "dumbing down" the following paragraphs when it gets into more specific areas of PT would be beneficial to readers. Trying to sound more educated in the article is less relevant than getting the proper information across to people viewing this webpage. AllmarasCasey (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Posture?

I redirected "posture therapy" and "posture correction" to this page. I was surprised they don't exist. There is a long article on poor posture which is almost entirely negative and doesn't really include suggestions for fixing bad posture. Physical therapy is the closest thing I can think of that would correct poor posture, but there's only one instance of the word "posture" in this whole article. How about a sub-section in this article that describes posture correction through physical therapy? Bad posture is a huge physical menace. Squish7 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Please include [[User:Squish7]] in replies to ping me.

Is Feldenkrais a type of physical therapy?

This is point of discussion on the Feldenkrais talk page. People active on this PT article might have information about the relationship between these two methods. In particular, if anyone has suggests for sources that state what category Feldenkrais belongs in (whether it is a type of PT or a type of -----), that would be welcome. --Karinpower (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

ANRC Neuromusculoskeletal Rehabilitation Centre Ltd.

Deleted as appears to be an advertisement.Johnscotaus (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ANRC Neuromusculoskeletal Rehabilitation Centre Ltd.

deleted as appears to be an advertisement Johnscotaus (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Physical therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Physical_Therapy&TEMPLATE=%2FCM%2FHTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=33205
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324161029/http://www.who.int/topics/health_policy/en/ to http://www.who.int/topics/health_policy/en/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Consumers1&Template=%2FCM%2FHTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=39568
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abpts.org/home.aspx/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

First Sentence contradicts itself

Is it "mostly known as Physiotherapy" or is it just "known as physiotherapists in many countries". Pick one and provide a source so we can look it up. Otherwise remove them both as they seriously confuse the flow of the paragraph. Thanks. N0w8st8s (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)n0w8st8s

The Effectiveness paragraph is a curious mixture of primary studies and systematic reviews

I would take out all text and references to individual randomised controlled trials. There is no telling how these have been selected. I would substitute these with an overview of relevant Cochrane systematic reviews looking at the effectiveness of various interventions commonly used in physiotherapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhenrik (talk • contribs) 11:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Physical therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130223105653/http://ptjournal.apta.org/cgi/content/full/86/1/141 to http://ptjournal.apta.org/cgi/content/full/86/1/141
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826032239/http://pt.usc.edu/SubLayout.aspx?id=2682 to http://pt.usc.edu/SubLayout.aspx?id=2682

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Why Physiotherapy is put here in allied health?

Why Physiotherapy is put here in allied health when WHO and the world currently puts Physiotherapy under healthworkers not associated or Allied health.please check International classification of health workers WHO. Kushan89 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a URL to that source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see you did provide the same source twice, but it doesn't use the word "allied" even once, and it lists many of the professions normally grouped under the Allied health professions umbrella, IOW those who work under a physician level education. They are literally the physician's "allies". I have reverted your edits. See the edit summary there, and stop making this edit or you will get blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Prescribing physiotherapists in the United Kingdom

Only a minority of physiotherapists (as they're called in the United Kingdom) can prescribe medications. This article implies all UK physiotherapists can. Extra training is required to become a prescriber (as per the BBC news article already cited). Xandercary (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Lower Back Pain Citation

I've included a citation for the following sentence: "It not only reduces or removes pain for a short time, but also reduces the risk for future back-pain re-occurrence. Based on the particular diagnosis, varied methods are practiced by physiotherapists to treat patients. They may follow pain management program, which helps get rid of inflammation and swelling for some." and it has been removed (twice).

The citation was to the following article: https://shapeshiftersstudio.co.uk/lower-back-pain/

It's difficult to cite any 1 particular study, this article cites various studies and combines the findings for proof. Surely this shouldn't get flagged for spam? --Hamzaaliafridi (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't link to advertorial blogs, which that clearly is (it includes a sales link for massage services). Even if that weren't the case, medical information on Wikipedia has special sourcing requirements, which you can find at WP:MEDRS. This does not meet those requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Pelvic floor physical therapy

Pelvic floor physical therapy is a fairly new subspecialty, but it is growing quickly. Right now we have the subheading "Women's health," and I went ahead and linked the new article for "Pelvic floor physical therapy" in this section, but the title "Women's health" is a bit of a misnomer, as pelvic floor physical therapy is effective for treating problems seen by all sexes. We could leave this section in, and talk more at length about the many issues that fall under this category that currently go unlinked, such as dyspareunia, vaginismus, vulvodynia, constipation, fecal or urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and sexual dysfunction, and then add another section for "men's health," but a simpler way of getting this information across may be to just scrap this subheading all together in favor of one titled "Pelvic floor physical therapy." Radiomilk (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

Change allied health professions to health professions only because WHO newer classification, made physiotherapy as one of health professions not allied or associated health profession And all sources here are ancient This newer source from WHO https://www.who.int/hrh/statistics/Health_workers_classification.pdf Ahmedelsayedaly (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done That is just a list of ALL health professions, not a specific list of ONLY professions considered under the umbrella terma "allied health professions". There are numerous lists of allied health professionals, and they always include physiotherapists. Bangladesh is the only country I have heard of which doesn't list PTs as part of allied health. They do have a rather primitive health care system.

You have repeatedly (by using IPs) tried to change that content and you will not succeed, so stop the disruption or you risk getting blocked. Try making constructive edits elsewhere. BTW, I left a message on your talk page and you didn't respond to it. That's not good. -- Valjean (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You tried using that same link to justify this change above (using a different username, a big no-no) at Talk:Physical_therapy#Why_Physiotherapy_is_put_here_in_allied_health?. -- Valjean (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Physiotherapy is a healthcare profession

Refer to National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professionals Act 2021. NCAHP Act 2021 is Act passed by Parliament in March 2021. Msubhan577 (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

NCAHP Act 2021 by Government of India. Msubhan577 (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Please Replace Allied Health Profession by Healthcare Profession. Msubhan577 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Allied Health

There seems to be strong opinion to labeling physical therapy as an allied health profession despite numerous attempts to remove the language. For anyone who supports keeping Allied Health Profession please desribe how it meaningfully contributes to the article.

As far back as 1989 the term was felt to be problematic.[5] Some excerpts: "The scarcity of such references reflects a lack of public awareness of what allied health practitioners do and the fact that the term means little or nothing to the public at large. Even in the health care community there is considerable confusion about which fields fall under the rubric of allied health. Many of the people who deliver allied health services or educate its practitioners have long been dissatisfied with the term." "Definitions of allied health vary due to its changing nature and to the differing perspectives of those who attempt its definition and because certain medically related but traditionally parallel or independent occupations prefer identities independent of allied health: nursing, podiatry, pharmacy, clinical psychology, etc. Other occupations may or may not regard themselves as allied health, depending upon their varying circumstances. e.g., nutritionists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, public health specialists, licensed practical nurses, medical research assistants, etc."

World Physiotherapy: "Founded in 1951, we are the sole international voice for physiotherapy. We represent more than 600,000 physiotherapists worldwide, through our 127 member organisations." [6] World Physiotherapy does not describe the profession as Allied Health. [7]

The American Physical Therapy Association does not identify the profession as Allied Health.

It seems the controlling authority should be how the profession describes itself. 98.151.202.51 (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The 'controlling authority' are the independent reliable sources. If we allowed professions (by which you seem to mean professional associations) to define themselves every article on a profession would be full of blatant self-promo. MrOllie (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

By that way of thinking do you support removing the cite to # "What is Allied Health?". Association of Schools of Allied Health Professionals. Retrieved 10 March 2020. 2605:59C8:31F4:D710:5289:E1C2:A542:253 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

For something as important as this, I suggest that IP98.151.202.51 register a username. You will be taken more seriously here, you will have more tools at your disposal, you will be able to receive notifications and thanks, and you will have better internet security. Like it or not, we tend to distrust IP editors as they are the ones responsible for most of the vandalism here. That's just the way it is.

We have covered this subject many times, as can be seen above. We follow what reliable sources say. A "lack" of mention means nothing. There are plenty of very RS that list Physiotherapy among the many Allied Health (AH) professions, and that is an honor. Being an Allied Health professional is not a negative thing. We are part of a brotherhood of other healthcare professionals, all working together ("allied") for the betterment of our patients.

You provide a link above, and that very source lists Physiotherapists among many other AH professionals. Just search for "Physical Therapy" on that page and you will find a whole section, so your link actually provides RS documentation that Physiotherapy is an AH profession. There is nothing on that website that indicates otherwise.

You say that "World Physiotherapy does not describe the profession as Allied Health." A lack of mention means nothing, and that is just a statement of logic. In fact, on their website, you can find articles that say things like this: "primary health care providers include allied health professionals such as physiotherapists". That is found here: https://world.physio/congress-proceeding/allied-health-professionals-perceptions-interprofessional-collaboration-primary

Try a search of their website: https://world.physio/search/content?keys=allied+health

As for the APTA, start with a search of their website. You'll find thousands of mentions of AH, and I suspect many of them do it in the context of PT as an AH profession.

Our article already uses several good RS to document the inclusion of PT among other healthcare professions that are consider AH. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Allied health has its origins with the Americal Medical Association and to this day they still hold the position physical therapists are subservient to physicians. [8]https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/ethics-opinions/allied-health-professionals

Given the profession is predominantly female "brotherhood" is probably not the best descriptor.

World Physiotherapy and APTA search return results that use the term in context of external useage and general internet search results. The official policies and positions of the organizations do not describe physical therapy as allied health.

The use of Allied Health does not add to the article and it has antiquated negative connotations. If the artice is to use allied health at all it should be placed in context. It should be moved from the first sentence to the body of the article. Context should be given that some entities consider physical therapy to be allied health but in most cases the profession does not define itself as allied health. 2605:59C8:31F4:D710:5289:E1C2:A542:253 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to get ahead of the sourcing, which are quite clear in applying this label to this profession. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I doubt one can find a list of Allied Health professions that doesn't include Physical Therapy. We go by what RS say, and they always include PT. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)