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

Abstract

# 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