Kinesiology Tape: A Descriptive Survey of Healthcare Professionals in the United States.

Background: The existing body of kinesiology tape (KT) research reveals inconsistent results which challenges the efficacy of the intervention. Understanding professional beliefs and KT clinical application might provide insight for future research and development of evidence-based guidelines.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to survey and document the beliefs and clinical application methods of KT among healthcare professionals in the United States.

Design: Cross-sectional survey study.

Methods: A 30-question online survey was emailed to members of the National Athletic Trainers Association, Academy of Orthopedic Physical Therapy, and American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy. Professionals were also informed through a recruitment post in different private healthcare Facebook groups.

Results: One thousand and eighty-three respondents completed the survey. Most respondents used KT for post-injury treatment (74%), pain modulation (67%), and neuro-sensory feedback (60%). Most believed that KT stimulates skin mechanoreceptors (77%), improve local circulation (69%), and modulates pain (60%). Some respondents believed KT only created a placebo effect (40%) and use it for such therapeutic purposes (58%). Most used a standard uncut roll (67%) in black (71%) or beige (66%). Most respondents did not use any specialty pre-cut tape (83%), infused tape (99.54%), or a topical analgesic with tape (65%). The most common tape tension lengths used by respondents were 50% tension (47%) and 25% (25%) tension. Patient reported outcomes (80%) were the most common clinical measures. Most respondents provided skin prep (64%) and tape removal (77%) instructions. Some did not provide any skin prep (36%) or tape removal (23%) instruction. The average recommended times to wear KT were two to three days (60%). The maximum times ranged from two to five days (81%).

Conclusion: This survey provides insight into how professionals use KT and highlights the gap between research and practice. Future research should address these gaps to better determine evidence-based guidelines.

Level Of Evidence: 3.