• Thursday, Apr 2nd, 2026

International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and TechnologY(IJARETY)
International, Double Blind-Peer Reviewed & Refereed Journal, Open Access Journal
|Approved by NSL & NISCAIR |Impact Factor: 8.152 | ESTD: 2014|

|Scholarly Open Access Journals, Peer-Reviewed, and Refereed Journal, Impact Factor-8.152 (Calculate by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar | AI-Powered Research Tool), Multidisciplinary, Bi-Monthly, Citation Generator, Digital Object Identifier(DOI)|

Article

TITLE Evaluating Quality of Physiotherapy Healthcare Services: Evidence from Mohali, Punjab: a narrative review
ABSTRACT Background: Good healthcare services will be required to enhance patient outcomes, satisfaction, and confidence in rehabilitation services. Physiotherapy is important in the recovery of functional ability and improvement of the quality of life. Yet the quality of the services provided by the physiotherapists in terms of physiotherapy healthcare is a dependent factor that depends on a combination of factors that include the skills of the physiotherapist, the rehabilitation measures, the presence of equipment, and the physical treatment environment. It is relevant that under such determinants, patient-centred physiotherapy care may be enhanced. Methods: The descriptive survey research design was adopted to investigate the factors that affect the perceived quality of the physiotherapy healthcare services in Mohali, Punjab. The participants of the study were 199 physiotherapy patients who had been treated in the chosen clinical facilities. The data were gathered with the help of the structured self-administered questionnaire on the basis of the Patient-Reported Outcomes measures (PROMs). The questionnaire was used to evaluate the skills of a physiotherapist, rehabilitation procedures, treatment area, equipment, and the general quality of services. The analysis of data was based on SPSS version 25, and the following statistics were used descriptive statistics and inferential statistics correlation and regression test. Results: The results indicated the great satisfaction with the overall patient satisfaction (98.5) with the physiotherapy services. The perceived quality of the services received received the most positive correlation with rehabilitation protocols (r = 0.473, p < 0.001), then physiotherapist skills (r = 0.442, p < 0.001), and equipment quality (r = 0.398, p < 0.001). The spatial factors proved the less significant yet significant connection with the service quality. The lack of enough time to consult is noted as one of the areas that need to be improved with about 28.6% of the patients citing that they did not get ample time to consult. Conclusion: The quality of the perception of the physiotherapy healthcare services by the patients is largely determined by the competencies, effective rehabilitation protocols, and properly maintained equipment of the physiotherapists. Making the process of consultation time more effective, providing a better infrastructure and reinforcing the concept of patient-centred communication can further enhance service delivery of physiotherapy. The results presented in these studies have valuable implications to health care practitioners and policymakers who are interested in improving physiotherapy care and patient satisfaction in India.
AUTHOR Dr Stuti Mittal, Dr Anil Kumar Singh Professor, Department of Physiotherapy, Guru Kashi University, Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda, Punjab, India Professor, Department of Physiotherapy, Sunrise University, Alwar, Rajasthan, India
VOLUME 13
DOI DOI:10.15680/IJARETY.2026.1302011
PDF 11_Evaluating Quality of Physiotherapy Healthcare Services Evidence from Mohali, Punjab a narrative review.pdf
KEYWORDS
References 1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academy Press; 2001.
2. Kidd MO, Bond CH, Bell ML. Patients’ perspectives of patient-centredness as important in musculoskeletal physiotherapy interactions: a qualitative study. Physiotherapy. 2011;97(2):154-162.
3. Del Baño-Aledo ME, et al. Determinants of patient satisfaction in physiotherapy services. Physiotherapy. 2014;100(3):225-231.
4. Samson M, et al. Physiotherapist-led orthopedic triage compared with standard primary care: patient perspectives. Phys Ther. 2016;96(9):1236-1244.
5. Georgiadou A, Dimitrios N. Patient satisfaction in public healthcare services. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2017;32(3):e155-e170.
6. Reyes C, et al. Organizational determinants of patient satisfaction in rehabilitation services. Health Serv Res. 2020;55(2):345-356.
7. Singh A, et al. Accessibility of physiotherapy services in India: challenges and prospects. Indian J Physiother Occup Ther. 2018;12(4):45-50.
8. Desmeules F, et al. Advanced practice physiotherapy in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:13.
9. World Health Organization. Everybody’s Business: Strengthening Health Systems to Improve Health Outcomes: WHO’s Framework for Action. WHO; 2007.
10. Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. Sage Publications; 2014.
11. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 4th ed. Sage Publications; 2015.
12. Yamane T. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. 2nd ed. Harper & Row; 1967.
13. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101.
14. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53-55.
15. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed. Oxford University Press; 2013.
16. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194.
17. Wright KB. Researching internet-based populations: advantages and disadvantages of online survey research. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2005;10(3).
18. Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743-1748.
19. Glasziou P, et al. Evidence-based outcome measurement in rehabilitation. BMJ. 2015;350:h3037.
20. Sloan JA, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Value Health. 2007;10(Suppl 2):S66-S71.
21. Ferreira PH, et al. The therapeutic alliance in physiotherapy. Man Ther. 2009;14(3):291-299.
22. Hall AM, et al. Patient communication and outcomes in physiotherapy. Phys Ther. 2010;90(8):1091-1102.
23. Pincus T, et al. A biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain. Clin Rehabil. 2013;27(5):397-407.
24. Ashburn A, et al. Physiotherapy management of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2014;29(11):1468-1477.
25. Ambrosino N, et al. Physiotherapy in critical care settings. Respir Med. 2012;106(6):831-839.
26. Stiller K. Early mobilization in intensive care. Chest. 2013;144(6):1900-1907.
27. Castro-Avila AC, et al. Early rehabilitation in ICU patients. Crit Care. 2015;19:59.
28. Nadinne K. Physiotherapy equipment and patient outcomes. J Med Eng Technol. 2017;41(6):456-462.
29. Sezdi M. Medical equipment maintenance management. J Clin Eng. 2016;41(1):10-15.
30. Winstein CJ, Requejo PS. Emerging technologies in neurorehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29(9):826-833.
31. Oliver RL. A cognitive model of satisfaction decisions. J Mark Res. 1980;17(4):460-469.
32. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J Retail. 1988;64(1):12-40.
33. Taylor R, et al. Application of the structure–process–outcome model in physiotherapy services. Physiotherapy. 2011;97(3):207-214.
34. Maddison R. Structures and processes in physiotherapy care. Physiother Res Int. 2014;19(4):205-212.
35. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167.
36. Ijeoma O, et al. Patient satisfaction with outpatient physiotherapy services. Afr J Physiother. 2019;8(2):45-52.
37. Mauksch LB, et al. Relationship-centered communication in healthcare. Acad Med. 2018;93(5):701-706.
38. Pinto RZ, et al. The therapeutic alliance and patient outcomes in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy. 2012;98(4):279-286.
39. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO; 2001.
40. Pincus T, et al. A biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain management. Clin Rehabil. 2013;27(5):397-407.
41. Mitchell P, et al. Core principles and values of effective team-based healthcare. J Interprof Care. 2018;32(1):1-8.
42. Willingendael EM, et al. Supervised exercise therapy for peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61(6):1507-1515.
43. Fowler Kennedy Sports Medicine Clinic. Rehabilitation Protocol Guidelines. 2015.
44. Chaboyer W, et al. Variability in physiotherapy service provision in intensive care. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2014;30(2):74-80.
45. Gosselink R, et al. Physiotherapy service delivery in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(9):1462-1464.
46. NHS Estates. Health Building Notes: Facilities for Therapy Services. Department of Health; 2000.
47. Reason J. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. BMJ. 1997;315(7117):1319-1321.
48. Nadinne K. Role of equipment in physiotherapy practice. J Med Eng Technol. 2017;41(6):456-462.
49. Robertson VJ, Baker KG. A review of therapeutic ultrasound effectiveness studies. Phys Ther. 2001;81(7):1339-1350.
50. Georgiadou A, Dimitrios N. Patient satisfaction in public healthcare services. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2017;32(3):e155-e170.
51. Reyes C, et al. Organizational determinants of patient satisfaction. Health Serv Res. 2020;55(2):345-356.

Copyright © IJARETY 2023 All Rights Reserved.