Implementation of 2D Running Gait Analysis in Orthopedic Physical Therapy Clinics

BACKGROUND: Despite 2D motion analysis deemed valid and reliable in assessing gait deviations in runners, current use of video-based motion analysis among orthopedic physical therapists is not prevalent. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To investigate clinician-perceived effectiveness, adherence, and barriers to using a 2D running gait analysis protocol for patients with running-related injuries. STUDY DESIGN: Survey METHODS: Thirty outpatient physical therapy clinics were contacted to assess interest in participation. Participating therapists were trained on 2D running gait analysis protocol and given a running gait checklist. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to assess the implementation process by collecting a baseline survey at the beginning of the study, effectiveness and implementation surveys at two months, and a maintenance survey at six months. RESULTS: Twelve of the 15 responding clinics met eligibility criteria, giving a Reach rate of 80%. Twelve clinicians from 10 different clinics participated, giving an Adoption rate of 83%. For Effectiveness, the majority of clinicians valued having a checklist, and reported the protocol was easy to conduct, the methodology was reasonable and appropriate, and patients saw the benefits of using the protocol. Assessing Implementation, 92% performed all steps of the protocol on all appropriate runners. Average time spent conducting the protocol was 32 minutes. With respect to Maintenance, 50% reported continuing to use the protocol, while 50% answered they were not to continue use. CONCLUSION: Clinicians expressed a perceived benefit of implementing a running gait analysis protocol with common themes of ease of use, being a useful adjunct to evaluating a patient, and increased satisfaction with treating injured runners. Potential barriers for not using the protocol included not having an appropriate clinic setup, time constraints, and not having adequate caseload. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b