Evidence mapPaperPMID 41519786Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2026

Acceptance and use of digital health technologies among physiotherapists in Germany: a web-based cross-sectional survey.

Fatma Sahan, Anja Gutermuth, Jennifer A Müller, Thomas Muth, Karin Panitz, Jennifer Apolinário-Hagen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Fatma SahanInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine and Center for Digital Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine- University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. Fatma.Sahan@hhu.de.
Anja GutermuthInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Jennifer A MüllerInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Thomas MuthInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Karin PanitzInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Jennifer Apolinário-HagenInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine and Center for Digital Medicine, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine- University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health technologies (DHT) have the potential to improve physiotherapy efficiency, access, and patient engagement, yet their uptake among physiotherapists remains limited. However, research into the individual determinants of DHT acceptance and professional use in physiotherapy practice remains scarce in Germany.

objectivesThis study investigates the acceptance of DHT among physiotherapists in Germany, identifying key factors influencing acceptance and actual use. Individual determinants such as demographic characteristics, eHealth literacy, technology readiness, and acceptance factors based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model are considered.

methodsA cross-sectional online survey of physiotherapists in Germany was conducted from November to December 2023. The questionnaire assessed UTAUT scales, including performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), social influence (SI), and facilitating conditions (FC), as well as eHealth literacy, technology readiness, demographic characteristics, knowledge about DHT, and exposure to digital health in formal education. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed using R.

resultsData from 297 physiotherapists (M = 44.56, SD = 12.26, female = 72.23%) were analyzed. Multiple regression analyses revealed that the UTAUT scales PE, FC, and SI, as well as the additional moderator formal education in digital health, were significantly associated with higher DHT acceptance (explained variance: R² = 0.79). Older age and prior DHT use negatively influenced acceptance, while knowledge, technology readiness, and eHealth literacy showed no significant influence. Younger physiotherapists used innovative digital tools (sensors: p = .002; wearables: p = .002; web apps: p = .008) more frequently. Male physiotherapists reported higher DHT acceptance than female professionals (p = .020). Notably, physiotherapists who had never used DHT showed greater acceptance than prior users (p < .001).

conclusionsAcceptance of DHT is significantly shaped by key UTAUT constructs, notably PE, SI, and FC, with PE identified as the most influential determinant. Age-related differences were evident, as younger physiotherapists reported higher levels of digital tool acceptance. Training tailored to individual needs and technical support could enhance acceptance across age groups. Future research should investigate specific barriers to integration to help develop practical strategies for incorporating DHT in physiotherapy.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPhysical TherapistsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDigital HealthFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesDigital healthMobile applicationsPhysical therapistsPhysical therapy modalitiesPhysiotherapistsTechnology acceptanceTelemedicineVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID41519786
PMCPMC12849112

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.