The Use of Digital Technologies in Physiotherapy Higher Education: a Mixed-Methods Study

Francesca Trentini; Chiara Fante; Flavio Manganello; Marco Testa; Simone Battista

doi:10.33393/aop.2025.3334

Authors

Francesca Trentini Rehabilitation Department, Villa Rosa Rehabilitation Hospital, Provincial Health Services Company (APSS), Trento - Italy https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0429-2909
Chiara Fante Institute for Educational Technologies, National Research Council, Genova - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6551-3278
Flavio Manganello Institute for Educational Technologies, National Research Council, Genova - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7584-939X
Marco Testa Department of Neurosciences, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona - Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8643-7200
Simone Battista School of Health and Society, Centre for Human Movement and Rehabilitation, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester - United Kingdom https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7471-1951

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33393/aop.2025.3334

Keywords:

Allied health personnel, Digital technology, Education, Mixed methods, Physical therapy modalities, Physical therapy specialty, Public health professional

Abstract

Background: Previous studies demonstrated that digital tools can be effectively integrated into physiotherapy higher education. However, their adoption remains limited. This study aimed to 1) evaluate the perceived knowledge, confidence, and frequency of digital technology use among Italian lecturers and 2) explore lecturers’ experiences with digital technology in higher education.

Methods: We performed a convergent mixed-method study using an online survey instrument for Italian physiotherapy lectures. We employed a 5-point Likert to evaluate perceived knowledge, confidence, and frequency of digital technology use, with consensus defined as an agreement of ≥70% on a statement. An optional qualitative section explored lecturers’ experiences with technology, which we analyzed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.

Results: Between June and September 2023, 118 lecturers (mean age: 45 ± 11; 69% female, n = 81) completed the survey. Participants expressed confidence in utilizing digital tools such as videoconferencing (95%), online repositories (88%), and communication apps (78%). On average, 32% reported using technologies “often” or “always.” In the qualitative section, completed by 77 participants, we generated three themes: 1) “Technology can promote a constructive educational approach”; 2) “Action of technologies on students’ learning process,” with mixed results on their impact; and 3) “Technology is not within everyone’s reach,” due to barriers to its implementation in didactics. Qualitative and quantitative findings confirmed one another, allowing for a deeper understanding of digital technologies among Italian physiotherapy lecturers.

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that digital tools are still underutilized among Italian physiotherapy lecturers. The main barriers include inadequate infrastructure and a lack of digital competencies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ødegaard NB, Røe Y, Dahl-Michelsen T. "Learning is about being active, but the digital is not really active": physiotherapy teachers' attitudes toward and experiences with digital education. Physiother Theory Pract. 2024;40(3):494-504. Internet. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2022.2119907 PMID:36062587 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2022.2119907

Car J, Carlstedt-Duke J, Tudor Car L, et al. Digital Health Education Collaboration. Digital education in health professions: the need for overarching evidence synthesis. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(2):e12913. https://doi.org/10.2196/12913 PMID:30762583 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/12913

Green RA, Farchione D, Hughes DL, et al. Participation in asynchronous online discussion forums does improve student learning of gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7(1):71-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1376 PMID:23733524 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1376

Hammarlund CS, Nilsson MH, Gummesson C. External and internal factors influencing self-directed online learning of physiotherapy undergraduate students in Sweden: a qualitative study. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2015;12:33. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.33 PMID:26101401 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.33

Rowe M, Bozalek V, Frantz J. Using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach to authentic learning. Br J Educ Technol. 2013;44(4):594-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12063 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12063

Tilson JK, Loeb K, Barbosa S, et al. Use of tablet computers to promote physical therapy students' engagement in knowledge translation during clinical experiences. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016;40(2):81-89. https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000123 PMID:26945431 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000123

Vaona A, Rigon G, Banzi R, et al, et al. E-learning for health professionals. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015;2015. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011736.pub2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011736

Gagnon K. Using Twitter in health professional education: a case study. J Allied Health. 2015;44(1):25-33. PMID:25743398

Tunnecliff J, Weiner J, Gaida JE, et al. Translating evidence to practice in the health professions: a randomized trial of Twitter vs Facebook. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(2):403-408. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw085 PMID:27357833 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw085

Frantz JM, Rowe M. Developing reflection and research skills through blogging in an evidence-based practice postgraduate physiotherapy module. Afr J Health Prof Educ. 2013;5(1):3. https://doi.org/10.7196/ajhpe.182 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7196/ajhpe.182

Phadtare A, Bahmani A, Shah A, et al. Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and online instruction. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-27 PMID:19473511 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-27

Annan-Coultas DL, Kazley AS, Seif GA. Effectiveness of audience response-enhanced case learning activities in graduate health professions education. J Allied Health. 2014;43(3):e53-e58. PMID:25194068

Wait KR, Cloud BA, Forster LA, et al. Use of an audience response system during peer teaching among physical therapy students in human gross anatomy: perceptions of peer teachers and students. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(6):286-293. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.107 PMID:19764082 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.107

Kurul R, Ögün MN, Neriman Narin A, et al. An alternative method for anatomy training: immersive virtual reality. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;13(5):648-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1959 PMID:32163659 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1959

Liaw SY, Soh SL-H, Tan KK, et al. Design and evaluation of a 3D virtual environment for collaborative learning in interprofessional team care delivery. Nurse Educ Today. 2019;81:64-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.06.012 PMID:31330404 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.06.012

Lucena-Anton D, Fernandez-Lopez JC, Pacheco-Serrano AI, et al. Virtual and augmented reality versus traditional methods for teaching physiotherapy: a systematic review. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2022;12(12):1780-1792. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12120125 PMID:36547026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12120125

Biggs JB. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. (Internet) 1999. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215915395 (Accessed October 2024)

Rowe M, Frantz J, Bozalek V. The role of blended learning in the clinical education of healthcare students: a systematic review. Med Teach. 2012;34(4):e216-e221. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.642831 PMID:22455712 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.642831

Hew KF, Lo CK. Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z PMID:29544495 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z

Lilllejord S, Børte K, Nesje K, et al. Learning and teaching eith technology in higher education - a systematic review. DigiTrans View project. 2018.

Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327057633 (Accessed October 2024)

UNESCO. Technology in education. 2018. Online https://doi.org/10.54676/HABJ1624 (Accessed October 2024) DOI: https://doi.org/10.54676/HABJ1624

Mącznik AK, Ribeiro DC, Baxter GD. Online technology use in physiotherapy teaching and learning: a systematic review of effectiveness and users' perceptions. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15(1):160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0429-8 PMID:26415677 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0429-8

Meade O, Bowskill D, Lymn JS. Pharmacology podcasts: a qualitative study of non-medical prescribing students' use, perceptions and impact on learning. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-2 PMID:21223547 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-2

Bertoni G, Marchesini E, Zanchettin FE, et al. Use of audience response systems (ARS) in physiotherapists' training: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2023;13(8):e073025. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073025 PMID:37607795 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073025

Sabus C, Sabata D, Antonacci D. Use of a virtual environment to facilitate instruction of an interprofessional home assessment. J Allied Health. 2011;40(4):199-205. PMID:22138875

Ødegaard NB, Myrhaug HT, Dahl-Michelsen T, et al. Digital learning designs in physiotherapy education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02483-w PMID:33441140 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02483-w

Thomas KJ, Denham BE, Dinolfo JD. Perceptions among occupational and physical therapy students of a nontraditional methodology for teaching laboratory gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4(2):71-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.208 PMID:21387566 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.208

Abbitt JT. An Investigation of the Relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about Technology Integration and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. J Digit Learn Teach Educ. 2014;27(4):134-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784670 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784670

Zeng Y, Wang Y, Li S. The relationship between teachers' information technology integration self-efficacy and TPACK: A meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1091017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1091017 PMID:36532968 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1091017

Unge J, Lundh P, Gummesson C, et al. Learning spaces for health sciences–what is the role of e-learning in physiotherapy and occupational therapy education? A literature review. Phys Ther Rev. 2018;23(1):50-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2018.1447423 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2018.1447423

Dolan EL, Collins JP. We must teach more effectively: here are four ways to get started. Mol Biol Cell. American Society for Cell Biology; 2015:2151-2155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E13-11-0675

Brahler CJ, Quitadamo IJ, Johnson EC. Student critical thinking is enhanced by developing exercise prescriptions using online learning modules. Adv Physiol Educ. 2002;26(1-4):210-221. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00018.2001 PMID:12189129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00018.2001

Juntunen A, Heikkinen E. Lessons from interprofessional e-learning: piloting a care of the elderly module. J Interprof Care. 2004;18(3):269-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820410001731313 PMID:15369970 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820410001731313

Carbonaro M, King S, Taylor E, et al. Integration of e-learning technologies in an interprofessional health science course. Med Teach. 2008;30(1):25-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701753450 PMID:18278648 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701753450

Stevens-Lapsley J, Hicks GE, Zimney K, et al. Research agenda for physical therapy from the American Physical Therapy Association. Phys Ther. 2023;103(10):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzad126 PMID:37712887 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzad126

Creswell JW, Clark VLP. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications; 2017. ISBN 1483346986, 9781483346984

Von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:573–8. 38. Eysenbach G. Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6:e34. Available from: http://www.jmir.org/2004/3/e34/ (Accessed October 2024) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 PMID:17872937 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(2):92-98. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074 PMID:18416914 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074

Union E. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Da. Official Journal of the European Union. 2016;L119:1-88.

Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj (Accessed October 2024)

Joshi A, Kale S, Chandel S, et al. Likert scale: explored and explained. Br J Appl Sci Technol. 2015;7(4):396-403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975

Cooper ID, Johnson TP. How to use survey results. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(2):174-177. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.016 PMID:27076809 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.016

Suárez-Álvarez J, Pedrosa I, Lozano LM, et al. Using reversed items in Likert scales: a questionable practice. Psicothema. 2018;30(2):149-158. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33 PMID:29694314 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33

Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res. 2021;21(1):37-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360

Braun V, Clarke V. Is thematic analysis used well in health psychology? A critical review of published research, with recommendations for quality practice and reporting. Health Psychol Rev. 2023;17(4):695-718. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2022.2161594 PMID:36656762 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2022.2161594

Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. SAGE Publications; 2021.

Byrne D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke's approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant. 2022;56(3):1391-1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y

Olivier B, Verdonck M, Caseleijn D. Digital technologies in undergraduate and postgraduate education in occupational therapy and physiotherapy: a scoping review. JBI Evid Synth. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2020:863-892. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00210

Priniski SJ, Hecht CA, Harackiewicz JM. Making learning personally meaningful: a new framework for relevance research. J Exp Educ. 2018;86(1):11-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589 PMID:30344338 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589

Royal KD, Rinaldo JCB. There's education, and then there's education in medicine. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2016;4(3):150-154. PMID:27382584

McCabe A, O'Connor U. Student-centred learning: the role and responsibility of the lecturer. Teach High Educ. 2014;19(4):350-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.860111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.860111