Clinical Practice Patterns Among Health Care Professionals for Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization

Abstract

Context Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) is a popular myofascial intervention used by health care professionals. Objective To document IASTM clinical practice patterns among health care professionals in the United States. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Online survey. Patients or Other Participants A total of 853 members of the National Athletic Trainers' Association (n = 249) and the American Physical Therapy Association (n = 604). Main Outcome Measure(s) Responses to a 55-item electronic survey that assessed 4 areas, namely, IASTM training and experience, IASTM application, perception of IASTM in practice, and demographic information. Results Most (n = 705, 83%) of the 853 respondents used IASTM in their practice, and they had an average of 15 years of work experience. Approximately 86% (n = 731) reported completing some type of formal training, and 61% (n = 518) had completed some type of informal training. Respondents used >34 different IASTM tools. Seventy-one percent (n = 606) indicated either not knowing how to quantify the amount of force applied by the tool during treatment or not trying to quantify. Fifteen percent (n = 128) estimated a force ranging from 100 to 500g. The treatment time for a specific lesion and location ranged from 1 to ≤5 minutes, with an average total treatment time of 14.46 ± 14.70 minutes. Respondents used 31 different interventions before or after IASTM. Approximately 66% (n = 564) reported following treatment recommendations, and 19% (n = 162) described rarely or never following recommendations learned during training. A total of 94% (n = 801) recounted using some type of clinical outcome measure to assess their treatment. Cluster analysis identified 3 distinct cluster groupings among professionals, with most (89%, n = 729/818) indicating that IASTM was an effective treatment. Conclusions This survey documented the IASTM practice patterns of health care professionals. Cluster profiles characterized group differences in IASTM training and clinical application. The gaps among research, clinical practice, and training need to be bridged to establish IASTM best practices.