Awareness, Access and Use of Shear Wave Elastography and MyotonPRO Among Physiotherapy Students and Practicing Physiotherapists: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Background: Shear wave elastography (SWE) and MyotonPro provide quantitative information on tissue mechanical properties and may complement conventional musculoskeletal assessment. This study assessed awareness, access, use, and perceived clinical utility of these technologies among physiotherapy students and practicing physiotherapists, and examined associations with age and professional experience. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted using an anonymous online survey. The author-developed questionnaire assessed awareness, access, self-reported use, self-rated knowledge, perceived utility, training, and implementation barriers. The sample included 101 respondents: 45 final-year physiotherapy students and 56 practicing physiotherapists from Warsaw, Poland. Group differences and associations with age and professional experience were assessed using appropriate non-parametric and categorical tests, with Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons. Results: Awareness of SWE and MyotonPro was reported by 31.7% and 35.6% of respondents, respectively, while 29.7% had access to either technology. Ever-use was reported by 15.8% for SWE and 21.8% for MyotonPro. Practicing physiotherapists showed greater awareness and use than students (SWE: 51.8% vs. 6.7%; MyotonPro: 53.6% vs. 13.3%; both p < 0.001). All nine group comparisons remained significant after adjustment. Professional experience was positively associated with all nine outcomes (ρ = 0.30–0.62; all adjusted p ≤ 0.0032), with the strongest association for SWE self-rated knowledge (ρ = 0.62, adjusted p < 0.0001). Age showed weaker associations. Conclusions: SWE and MyotonPro remain incompletely integrated into the surveyed physiotherapy population. Professional experience was the most consistent correlate of technology-related outcomes. Limited equipment access and cost were important barriers. The findings highlight differences in awareness, experience, and perceived barriers, while further research is needed to determine whether educational or organizational interventions would improve clinical adoption.