## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Participants’ Characteristics**} \\ \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Respenses**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **n** & **\%** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Gender} & Female & 121 & 59.6 \\  & Male & 81 & 39.9 \\  & Other & 1 & 0.5 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Age} & 20–29 years & 34 & 16.7 \\  & 30–39 years & 65 & 32.0 \\ \cline{2-4}  & 40–49 years & 57 & 28.1 \\  & 50–59 years & 40 & 19.7 \\  & 60+ & 7 & 3.4 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Year of obtaining a degree in physiotherapy} & Before 1977 & 1 & 0.5 \\  & 1978 to 1983 & 4 & 2.0 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 1984 to 1999 & 50 & 24.6 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2000 to 2017 & 131 & 64.5 \\ \cline{1-1}  & After 2018 & 17 & 8.4 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Graduation Institution} & Technological Institute & \multirow{3}{*}{34} & \multirow{3}{*}{16.7} \\  & (University of Athens) & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Graduation Institution} & Technological Institute of & \multirow{3}{*}{13} & \multirow{3}{*}{6.4} \\  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Years of work as a physiotherapist} & 1–5 & 35 & 17.2 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 6–10 & 36 & 17.7 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 11–15 & 38 & 18.7 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 16–20 & 42 & 20.7 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Over 21 & 52 & 25.6 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Employment status} & Public sector employee & 53 & 26.1 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Private sector employee & 42 & 20.7 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Self-employed (owner of a physiotherapy center) & 71 & 35.0 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Lifelong training program or attendance of a seminar on neurological physiotherapy for adults?} & Yes & 100 & 49.3 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & No & 103 & 50.7 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{1-1}  & Master’s or doctoral degree in physiotherapy & Yes & 94 & 46.3 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & No & 109 & 53.7 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Master’s or doctoral degree in subjecting} & Yes & 38 & 18.7 \\ \cline{1-1}  & neurological physiotherapy & No & 165 & 81.3 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Participants’ characteristics. Furthermore, a significant difference was found among the responses for the locations where the rehabilitation program of such patients took place (Pearson Chi-Square = 298,753, df = 5, \(p<0.001\)). Most of the responses were received for home sessions (Table 3). Meanwhile, it also became evident that the participants always (37.4%) communicated with healthcare professionals to formulate their rehabilitation program (Figure 1), and they often (23.2%) used assessment tools/scales to evaluate patients with PD (Figure 2). The most frequently used tools/scales were the Timed Up and Go test (13%), the Activities of Daily Living assessment scale (11.2%), the Berg Balance Scale (10.5%), the 10 m Walk Test (8.8%) and the 5 Times Sit-to-Stand test (7.7%). A statistically significant difference was observed between the use of assessment tools and the number of physiotherapists who attended lifelong educational seminars or programs (Pearson Chi-Square = 23.082, df = 5, \(p<0.001\)). Of the physical therapists who always, mostly always, often, and sometimes used evaluation tools/scales to evaluate patients with PD, a greater percentage attended a lifelong educational program/seminar concerning adult neurological physical therapy (70.6%, 58.3%, 53.2%, and 51.4%, respectively). The results are presented in Table 4 and Figure 3.