ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aims of the scoping review were to: (1) evaluate how commonly trialists assess and report adherence to exercise intervention for common musculoskeletal conditions and (2) report the levels of adherence to exercise for musculoskeletal conditions and whether this was influenced by variables of interest. METHODS: Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Emcare, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched using predefined terms. Published randomised controlled trials were included. Trials were included if they investigated the effectiveness of an exercise intervention for low back pain, shoulder pain, Achilles tendinopathy and knee osteoarthritis (we selected a priori as indicative common musculoskeletal conditions). Data extraction was performed independently by teams of two reviewers. Descriptive consolidation and qualitative synthesis were performed. RESULTS: 321 trials were included; less than half (46.7%, 150/321) measured adherence. When adherence was assessed, 21% (31/150) of trials did not report the results. Adherence levels were greater when people were supervised. Reporting adherence was more common in registered trials. Adherence was measured most frequently via self-report (47.3%, 71/150) followed by supervised sessions (32.0%, 48/150) or combination of both (20.7%, 31/150). The majority of trials (97.0%, 97/100) reported the level of adherence in terms of a frequency. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of trials investigating exercise interventions for common musculoskeletal conditions do not assess exercise adherence. Trials that were registered reported exercise adherence more frequently. The majority of trials measure adherence via self-report with reliance on only one dimension of exercise adherence (frequency).
