Margit Kooijman

MSU | 61 TABLE 1. Characteristics of invited physiotherapy practice owners and results of non-respons analysis MSU was offered in 18% (n = 99) of the practices. These practices were bigger in number of full-time equivalent (FTE) and in number of physiotherapists with a specialty in pelvic, manual, sports or occupational physiotherapy than in practices not offering MSU (table 2). On average, there were 2.0 (SD 1.0) MSU physiotherapists working in a practice offering MSU. TABLE 2. Characteristics of participating practices Reasons for (non)offering MSU Of the practice owners who offer MSU, 92% indicated that they would purchase MSU equipment when given the choice again. On the open-ended question ‘what is/are the main reason(s) for purchasing MSU equipment’, most answers could be attributed to the improvement of diagnosis. High costs for purchase/ no reimbursement and not using it at all were mentioned by those who would not choose for MSU again. Of the practices without MSU, 34% did not have a specific reason, 7% did not have MSU equipment yet Respondents (n = 560) (%) Non-respondents (n = 410) (%) P value non-response analysis Gender (% male) 65.8 64.4 0.645 Age (mean, sd) 54.9 (7.8) 53.2 (8.7) 0.001 Type of practice: 0.182 Solo 32.6 37.1 Duo 13.8 15.3 Group 53.7 47.7 Degree of urbanicity: 0.705 Urban 46.0 46.5 Suburban 21.5 19.4 Rural 32.6 34.1 Region: 0.245 North 8.8 12.4 East 19.5 18.6 West 45.6 46.3 South 26.1 22.8 Total Practice with MSU (n = 99) (%) Practice without MSU (n = 461) (%) P value Number of fte (mean, sd) 3.6 (3.4) 6.0 (4.0) 3.1 (3.0) < 0.001 Specialty: Pelvic 19.8 31.3 17.2 0.001 Geriatrics 8.9 13.1 8.0 0.100 Pediatrics 21.4 28.3 19.9 0.064 Manual 61.1 85.9 55.6 < 0.001 Orofascial 7.1 11.1 6.2 0.083 Psychosomatic 15.9 20.2 15.0 0.201 Sports 26.6 53.5 20.8 < 0.001 Edema 31.0 40.4 28.9 0.025 Occupational 10.3 25.3 7.1 < 0.001 MSU PT < 0.001 yes 18.5 92.8 2.5 no 81.5 7.2 97.5