Multicentred randomised controlled trial of an augmented exercise referral scheme using web-based behavioural support in individuals with metabolic, musculoskeletal and mental health conditions: protocol for the e-coachER trial.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity is recommended for improving health among people with common chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis and low mood. One approach to promote physical activity is via primary care exercise referral schemes (ERS). However, there is limited support for the effectiveness of ERS for increasing long-term physical activity and additional interventions are needed to help patients overcome barriers to ERS uptake and adherence.This study aims to determine whether augmenting usual ERS with web-based behavioural support, based on the LifeGuide platform, will increase long-term physical activity for patients with chronic physical and mental health conditions, and is cost-effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre parallel two-group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to usual ERS alone (control) or usual ERS plus web-based behavioural support (intervention) with parallel economic and mixed methods process evaluations. Participants are low active adults with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis or a history of depression, referred to an ERS from primary care in the UK.The primary outcome measure is the number of minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in ≥10 min bouts measured by accelerometer over 1 week at 12 months.We plan to recruit 413 participants, with 88% power at a two-sided alpha of 5%, assuming 20% attrition, to demonstrate a between-group difference of 36-39 min of MVPA per week at 12 months. An improvement of this magnitude represents an important change in physical activity, particularly for inactive participants with chronic conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by North West Preston NHS Research Ethics Committee (15/NW/0347). Dissemination will include publication of findings for the stated outcomes, parallel process evaluation and economic evaluation in peer-reviewed journals.Results will be disseminated to ERS services, primary healthcare providers and trial participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15644451; Pre-results.

Living with joint hypermobility syndrome: patient experiences of diagnosis, referral and self-care.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal problems are common reasons for seeking primary health care. It has been suggested that many people with 'everyday' non-inflammatory musculoskeletal problems may have undiagnosed joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS), a complex multi-systemic condition. JHS is characterized by joint laxity, pain, fatigue and a wide range of other symptoms. Physiotherapy is usually the preferred treatment option for JHS, although diagnosis can be difficult. The lived experience of those with JHS requires investigation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to examine patients' lived experience of JHS, their views and experiences of JHS diagnosis and management. METHODS: Focus groups in four locations in the UK were convened, involving 25 participants with a prior diagnosis of JHS. The focus groups were audio recorded, fully transcribed and analysed using the constant comparative method to inductively derive a thematic account of the data. RESULTS: Pain, fatigue, proprioception difficulties and repeated cycles of injury were among the most challenging features of living with JHS. Participants perceived a lack of awareness of JHS from health professionals and more widely in society and described how diagnosis and access to appropriate health-care services was often slow and convoluted. Education for patients and health professionals was considered to be essential. CONCLUSIONS: Timely diagnosis, raising awareness and access to health professionals who understand JHS may be particularly instrumental in helping to ameliorate symptoms and help patients to self-manage their condition. Physiotherapists and other health professionals should receive training to provide biopsychosocial support for people with this condition.

Memory for pain? A comparison of nonexperiential estimates and patients' reports of the quality and intensity of postoperative pain.

UNLABELLED: Prior research has questioned the extent to which postoperative retrospective ratings of acute pain actually reflect memory of that pain. To investigate this issue, pain ratings provided by patients who had undergone vascular surgery were compared with estimates of this pain provided by 2 groups of healthy, nonpatient participants with no personal experience of the surgery. Patient participants rated postoperative pain while actually experiencing it and again 4 to 6 weeks after surgery. Nonpatient groups read either a comprehensive information leaflet describing postoperative pain after vascular surgery, or a short general information leaflet about the surgery and provided 2 estimates of the likely nature of the pain, 4 to 6 weeks apart. Compared with patients, both nonpatient groups overestimated pain severity, and nonpatients provided with the comprehensive information leaflet were less consistent in their estimates compared with the other 2 groups. However, qualitative descriptions of the pain provided by the 3 groups shared many similarities. Our findings highlight limitations of inferring pain memory accuracy by comparing ratings given while in pain with those provided retrospectively and demonstrate the need to consider the phenomenological awareness accompanying recollections of prior pain events to advance our understanding of memory for pain. PERSPECTIVE: The observed similarities between pain ratings made by individuals who have experienced a particular pain and estimates made by those without personal experience question whether retrospective pain ratings can be assumed to reflect memory of that pain. The need to adopt new approaches to assess memory for pain is highlighted.