Patients', physiotherapists' and other stakeholders' experiences and perceptions about supported home physiotherapy for people with musculoskeletal conditions: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Exercise, support and advice are the key treatment strategies of musculoskeletal problems. The aims of this study were to determine patients', physiotherapists', and other stakeholders' perspectives about supported home physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal problems and to identify the barriers and facilitators to rolling out this model of physiotherapy service delivery. METHODS: This study was conducted as part of a process evaluation run alongside a large trial designed to determine whether supported home physiotherapy is as good or better than a course of in-person physiotherapy. Forty interviews were conducted with 20 trial participants, 15 physiotherapists, and 5 other stakeholders. The interviews were semi-structured and based on interview guides. Each interview was transcribed and a three-tiered coding tree was developed. RESULTS: Six key themes were identified. Supported home physiotherapy (i) is convenient for some patients, (ii) does not always align with patients' and therapists' expectations about treatment (iii) is suitable for some but not all, (iv) can reduce personal connection and accountability, (v) has implications for physiotherapists' workloads, and (vi) has barriers and facilitators to future implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that patients are far more accepting of supported home physiotherapy than physiotherapists assume. This model of service delivery could be rolled out to improve access to physiotherapy and to provide a convenient and effective way of delivering physiotherapy to some patients with musculoskeletal conditions if our trial results indicate that supported home physiotherapy is as good or better than in-person physiotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: ACTRN12619000065190 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS PAPER.

Remotely delivered physiotherapy is as effective as face-to-face physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions (REFORM): a randomised trial.

QUESTION: Is remotely delivered physiotherapy as good or better than face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal conditions? DESIGN: Randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 210 adult participants with a musculoskeletal condition who presented for outpatient physiotherapy at five public hospitals in Sydney. INTERVENTION: One group received a remotely delivered physiotherapy program for 6 weeks that consisted of one face-to-face physiotherapy session in conjunction with weekly text messages, phone calls at 2 and 4 weeks, and an individualised home exercise program delivered through an app. The other group received usual face-to-face physiotherapy care in an outpatient setting. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -15 out of 100 points. Secondary outcomes included: the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 26 weeks; kinesiophobia, pain, function/disability, global impression of change and quality of life at 6 and 26 weeks; and satisfaction with service delivery at 6 weeks. RESULTS: The mean between-group difference (95% CI) for the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks was 2.7 out of 100 points (-3.5 to 8.8), where a positive score favoured remotely delivered physiotherapy. The lower end of the 95% CI was greater than the non-inferiority margin. Whilst non-inferiority margins were not set for the secondary outcomes, the 95% CI of the mean between-group difference ruled out clinically meaningful differences. CONCLUSION: Remotely delivered physiotherapy with support via phone, text and an app is as good as face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12619000065190.

Protocol for a process evaluation: face-to-face physiotherapy compared with a supported home exercise programme for the management of musculoskeletal conditions: the REFORM trial.

INTRODUCTION: The REFORM (REhabilitation FOR Musculoskeletal conditions) trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (n=210) designed to determine whether a supported home exercise programme is as good or better than a course of face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of some musculoskeletal conditions. The trial is currently being conducted across Sydney government hospitals in Australia. This process evaluation will run alongside the REFORM trial. It combines qualitative and quantitative data to help explain the trial results and determine the feasibility of rolling out supported home exercise programmes in settings similar to the REFORM trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two theoretical frameworks underpin our process evaluation methodology: the Realist framework (context, mechanism, outcomes) considers the causal assumptions as to why a supported home exercise programme may be as good or better than face-to-face physiotherapy in terms of the context, mechanisms and outcomes of the trial. The RE-AIM framework describes the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance of the intervention. These two frameworks will be broadly used to guide this process evaluation using a mixed-methods approach. For example, qualitative data will be derived from interviews with patients, healthcare professionals and stakeholders, and quantitative data will be collected to determine the cost and feasibility of providing supported home exercise programmes. These data will be analysed iteratively before the analysis of the trial results and will be triangulated with the results of the primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial will be conducted in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2018) and the Note for Good Clinical Practice (CPMP/ICH-135/95). Ethical approval was obtained on 17 March 2017 from the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (trial number: HREC/16HAWKE/431-RESP/16/287) with an amendment for the process evaluation approved on 4 February 2020. The results of the process evaluation will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619000065190.

Face-to-face physiotherapy compared with a supported home exercise programme for the management of musculoskeletal conditions: protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial-the REFORM trial.

INTRODUCTION: Exercise, support and advice are considered core components of management for most musculoskeletal conditions and are typically provided by physiotherapists through regular face-to-face treatments. However, exercise can be provided remotely as part of a home exercise programme, while support and advice can be provided over the telephone. There is initial evidence from trials and systematic reviews to suggest that remotely provided physiotherapy can be used to manage a variety of musculoskeletal conditions safely and effectively. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this single-blind randomised controlled non-inferiority trial is to determine whether a supported home exercise programme is as good as or better than face-to-face physiotherapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. Two hundred and ten participants will be recruited from five public hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be randomised to either the supported home exercise group or the face-to-face physiotherapy group. Participants allocated to the supported home exercise group will initially receive one face-to-face session with the trial physiotherapist and will then be managed remotely for the next 6 weeks. Participants allocated to the face-to-face physiotherapy group will receive a course of physiotherapy as typically provided in Sydney government hospitals. The primary outcome is function measured by the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks. There will be nine secondary outcomes measured at 6 and 26 weeks. Separate analyses will be conducted on each outcome, and all analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. A health economic evaluation will be conducted from a health funder plus patient perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained on the 17 March 2017 from the Northern Sydney Local Health District HREC, trial number HREC/16HAWKE/431-RESP/16/287. The results of this study will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals and be presented at national and international conferences. Recruitment commenced in March 2019, and it is anticipated that the trial will be completed by December 2021. This trial will investigate two different models of physiotherapy care for people with musculoskeletal conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CPMP/ICH-135/95. PROTOCOL VERSION: The most recent version of the protocol is V.1.2 dated November 2019.

Performance of the LACE index to predict 30-day hospital readmissions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients hospitalized for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have a high 30-day hospital readmission rate, which has a large impact on the health care system and patients' quality of life. The use of a prediction model to quantify a patient's risk of readmission may assist in directing interventions to patients who will benefit most. The objective of this study was to calculate the rate of 30-day readmissions and evaluate the accuracy of the LACE index (length of stay, acuity of admission, co-morbidities, and emergency department visits within the last 6 months) for 30-day readmissions in a general hospital population of COPD patients. METHODS: All patients admitted with a principal diagnosis of COPD to Liverpool Hospital, a tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia, between 2006 and 2016 were included in the study. A LACE index score was calculated for each patient and assessed using receiver operator characteristic curves. RESULTS: During the study period, 2,662 patients had 5,979 hospitalizations for COPD. Four percent of patients died in hospital and 25% were readmitted within 30 days; 56% of all 30-day readmissions were again due to COPD. The most common reasons for readmission, following COPD, were heart failure, pneumonia, and chest pain. The LACE index had moderate discriminative ability to predict 30-day readmission (C-statistic =0.63). CONCLUSION: The 30-day hospital readmission rate was 25% following hospitalization for COPD in an Australian tertiary hospital and as such comparable to international published rates. The LACE index only had moderate discriminative ability to predict 30-day readmission in patients hospitalized for COPD.

Motor control exercise for chronic low back pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The evidence that exercise intervention is effective for treatment of chronic low back pain comes from trials that are not placebo-controlled. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of motor control exercise for people with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: The study was conducted in an outpatient physical therapy department in Australia. Patients The participants were 154 patients with chronic low back pain of more than 12 weeks' duration. INTERVENTION: Twelve sessions of motor control exercise (ie, exercises designed to improve function of specific muscles of the low back region and the control of posture and movement) or placebo (ie, detuned ultrasound therapy and detuned short-wave therapy) were conducted over 8 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were pain intensity, activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale), and patient's global impression of recovery measured at 2 months. Secondary outcomes were pain; activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale); patient's global impression of recovery measured at 6 and 12 months; activity limitation (measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2, 6, and 12 months; and risk of persistent or recurrent pain at 12 months. RESULTS: The exercise intervention improved activity and patient's global impression of recovery but did not clearly reduce pain at 2 months. The mean effect of exercise on activity (measured by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale) was 1.1 points (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.3 to 1.8), the mean effect on global impression of recovery was 1.5 points (95% CI=0.4 to 2.5), and the mean effect on pain was 0.9 points (95% CI=-0.01 to 1.8), all measured on 11-point scales. Secondary outcomes also favored motor control exercise. Limitation Clinicians could not be blinded to the intervention they provided. CONCLUSIONS: Motor control exercise produced short-term improvements in global impression of recovery and activity, but not pain, for people with chronic low back pain. Most of the effects observed in the short term were maintained at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups.

Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial.

Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise and manipulative therapy for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare effects of general exercise, motor control exercise and manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain. Two hundred and forty adults with non-specific low back pain 3months were allocated to groups that received 8weeks of general exercise, motor control exercise or spinal manipulative therapy. General exercise included strengthening, stretching and aerobic exercises. Motor control exercise involved retraining specific trunk muscles using ultrasound feedback. Spinal manipulative therapy included joint mobilization and manipulation. Primary outcomes were patient-specific function (PSFS, 3-30) and global perceived effect (GPE, -5 to 5) at 8weeks. These outcomes were also measured at 6 and 12months. Follow-up was 93% at 8weeks and 88% at 6 and 12months. The motor control exercise group had slightly better outcomes than the general exercise group at 8weeks (between-group difference: PSFS 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9-4.8; GPE 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9-2.4), as did the spinal manipulative therapy group (PSFS 2.3, 95% CI: 0.4-4.2; GPE 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4-2.0). The groups had similar outcomes at 6 and 12months. Motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy produce slightly better short-term function and perceptions of effect than general exercise, but not better medium or long-term effects, in patients with chronic non-specific back pain.