Physical therapy registries worldwide: A systematic review

AbstractIntroductionNowadays, the demand for physical therapy services has grown significantly over the last few decades due to an aging population, a rise in chronic conditions, and increased awareness of the benefits of physical therapy for injury recovery and managing various health issues. Collecting and managing data from physical therapy services is highly significant and beneficial. One of the information management systems that facilitates data collection related to physical therapy services is a physical therapy registry. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify physical therapy registries worldwide and examine the characteristics and data elements of each registry.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE databases were searched from inception until March 19, 2023 by using keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms regarding “registries” and “physical therapy.” The criteria for inclusion in the study were: (1) studies with the English language; (2) original studies, and online access to the physical therapy registry is available; (3) full‐text available; (4) studies related to the aims of the study, and (5) studies that have sufficient available information regarding the minimum datasets and other characteristics physical therapy registry. The methodological quality of the included studies was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Effective Public Health Practice Project's (EPHPP) quality assessment tool.ResultsSixteen studies were eligible to be included. The findings of this review indicated that the oldest physical therapy registry was established in 1992, while the newest one was established in 2017. The USA has the highest number of physical therapy registries (n = 7). Ten registries were funded by the government, and the data source for most registries was collected in clinics (n = 11). The geographical coverage of 10 registries was national. All registries collected administrative data (such as sociodemographic data, healthcare provider's data, and others) and clinical data (such as diagnosis, type of physical therapy intervention, pain location, comorbidities, and others) through web‐based systems. The data collection method in half of the registries was retrospective (n = 8 out of 16). According to the EPHPP quality assessment tool, 11 studies (73%) were rated as moderate, 3 (20%) as weak, and 1 (7%) as strong.ConclusionThis systematic review found that most developed countries have implemented web‐based physical therapy registries to collect administrative and clinical data at the national level. It is recommended that developing countries design and implement similar registries based on these characteristics and extracted data elements. Additionally, these registries should be designed to enable data sharing and interoperability with other international health information systems.