Integrating physical therapy sessions and an online application (e-Exercise) might support people with hip osteoarthritis (OA), knee OA, or both (hip/knee OA) in taking an active role in the management of their chronic condition and may reduce the number of physical therapy sessions. The objective of this study was to investigate the short- and long-term effectiveness of e-Exercise compared to usual physical therapy in people with hip/knee OA. The design was a prospective, single-blind, multicenter, superiority, cluster-randomized controlled trial. e-Exercise is a 3-month intervention in which about 5 face-to-face physical therapy sessions were integrated with an online application consisting of graded activity, exercise, and information modules. Usual physical therapy was conducted according to the Dutch physical therapy guidelines on hip and knee OA. Primary outcomes, measured at baseline after 3 and 12 months, were physical functioning and free-living physical activity. Secondary outcome measures were pain, tiredness, quality of life, self-efficacy, and the number of physical therapy sessions.
DOCUMENT
This study explores which patient-, intervention-, and environment-related factors are determinants of adherence to the online component of e-Exercise, a 12-week blended intervention for patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis.
LINK
Background Regular physiotherapy with a physiotherapist experienced in the field is not feasible for many patients with haemophilia. We, therefore, developed a blended physiotherapy intervention for persons with haemophilic arthropathy (HA) (e-Exercise HA), integrating face-to-face physiotherapy with a smartphone application. Aim The aim of the study was to determine proof of concept of e- Exercise HA and to evaluate feasibility. Methods Proof of concept was evaluated by a single-case multiple baseline design. Physical activity (PA) was measured with an accelerometer during a baseline, intervention and post-intervention phase and analysed using visual inspection and a single case randomisation test. Changes in limitations in activities (Haemophilia Activities List [HAL]) and a General Perceived Effect (GPE) were evaluated between baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1) and 3 months post-intervention (T2) using Wilcoxson signed rank test. Feasibility was evaluated by the number of adverse events, attended sessions and open-ended questions. Results Nine patients with HA (90% severe, median age 57.5 (quartiles 50.5–63.3) and median HJHS 32 (quartiles 22–36)) were included. PA increased in two patients. HAL increased mean 15 (SD 9) points (p = .001) at T1, and decrease to mean +8 points (SD 7) (p = .012) at T2 compared to T0. At T1 and T2 8/9 participants scored a GPE > 3. Median 5 (range 4–7) face-to-face sessions were attended and a median 8 out of 12 information modules were viewed. No intervention-related bleeds were reported. Conclusion A blended physiotherapy intervention is feasible for persons with HA and the first indication of the effectiveness of the intervention in decreasing limitations in activities was observed.
MULTIFILE
Background: Regular physiotherapy with a physiotherapist experienced in the field is not feasible for many patients with haemophilia. We, therefore, developed a blended physiotherapy intervention for persons with haemophilic arthropathy (HA) (e-Exercise HA), integrating face-to-face physiotherapy with a smartphone application. Aim: The aim of the study was to determine proof of concept of e- Exercise HA and to evaluate feasibility. Methods: Proof of concept was evaluated by a single-case multiple baseline design. Physical activity (PA) was measured with an accelerometer during a baseline, intervention and post-intervention phase and analysed using visual inspection and a single case randomisation test. Changes in limitations in activities (Haemophilia Activities List [HAL]) and a General Perceived Effect (GPE) were evaluated between baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1) and 3 months post-intervention (T2) using Wilcoxson signed rank test. Feasibility was evaluated by the number of adverse events, attended sessions and open-ended questions. Results: Nine patients with HA (90% severe, median age 57.5 (quartiles 50.5–63.3) and median HJHS 32 (quartiles 22–36)) were included. PA increased in two patients. HAL increased mean 15 (SD 9) points (p = .001) at T1, and decrease to mean +8 points (SD 7) (p = .012) at T2 compared to T0. At T1 and T2 8/9 participants scored a GPE > 3. Median 5 (range 4–7) face-to-face sessions were attended and a median 8 out of 12 information modules were viewed. No intervention-related bleeds were reported. Conclusion: A blended physiotherapy intervention is feasible for persons with HA and the first indication of the effectiveness of the intervention in decreasing limitations in activities was observed.
LINK
Intramed Magazine, September 2017:pg5-7
DOCUMENT
E-Exercise is an effective 12-week blended intervention consisting of around five face-to-face physiotherapy sessions and a web-based application for patients with hip/knee osteoarthritis. In order to facilitate effective implementation of e-Exercise, this study aims to identify physiotherapists' experiences and determinants related to the usage of e-Exercise. Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed methods design embedded in a randomized controlled trial comparing e-Exercise with usual physiotherapy in patients with hip/knee osteoarthritis. Usage of e-Exercise was based on recruitment rates of 123 physiotherapists allocated to e-Exercise and objective web-based application usage data. Experiences and determinants related to e-Exercise usage were investigated with a questionnaire and clarified with semi-structured interviews. Results: Of the 123 physiotherapists allocated to e-Exercise, 54 recruited more than one eligible patient, of whom 10 physiotherapists continued using e-Exercise after the study period. Physiotherapists had mixed experiences with e-Exercise. Determinants related to intervention usage were appropriateness, added value, time, workload, professional autonomy, environmental factors, and financial consequences. Physiotherapists recommended to improve the ability to tailor e-Exercise to the individual needs of the patient patients' individual needs. Discussion: Determinants related to the usage of e-Exercise provided valuable information for the implementation of e-Exercise on broader scale. Most importantly, the flexibility of e-Exercise needs to be improved. Next, there is a need for education on how to integrate an online program within physiotherapy
DOCUMENT
Background: Patient education, advice on returning to normal activities and (home-based) exercise therapy are established treatment options for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on physical functioning and prevention of recurrent events largely depends on patient self-management, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour. Therefore we have developed e-Exercise LBP, a blended intervention in which a smartphone application is integrated within face-to-face care. E-Exercise LBP aims to improve patient self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations and consequently improve the effectiveness of physiotherapy on patients’ physical functioning. The aim of this study is to investigate the short- (3 months) and long-term (12 and 24 months) effectiveness on physical functioning and cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP in comparison to usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with LBP. Methods: This paper presents the protocol of a prospective, multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial. In total 208 patients with LBP pain were treated with either e-Exercise LBP or usual care physiotherapy. E-Exercise LBP is stratified based on the risk for developing persistent LBP. Physiotherapists are able to monitor and evaluate treatment progress between face-to-face sessions using patient input from the smartphone application in order to optimize physiotherapy care. The smartphone application contains video-supported self-management information, video-supported exercises and a goal-oriented physical activity module. The primary outcome is physical functioning at 12-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, physical activity, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour, self-efficacy, patient activation and health-related quality of life. All measurements will be performed at baseline, 3, 12 and 24months after inclusion. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and the healthcare perspective and will assess cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP compared to usual physiotherapy at 12 and 24months. Discussion: A multi-phase development and implementation process using the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap for the participatory development of eHealth was used for development and evaluation. The findings will provide evidence on the effectiveness of blended care for patients with LBP and help to enhance future implementation of blended physiotherapy.
DOCUMENT
Background: Patient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients’ self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients’ physical functioning. Objective: This study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. Methods The study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Both the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference −1.96, 95% CI −4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference −16.39, 95% CI −27.98 to −4.79) and several secondary outcomes. Conclusions: The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy.
LINK
Background: Patient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients’ self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients’ physical functioning. Objective: This study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. Methods: The study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Both the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference −1.96, 95% CI −4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference −16.39, 95% CI −27.98 to −4.79) and several secondary outcomes. Conclusions: The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy.
MULTIFILE
DOCUMENT
