RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Compare the effectiveness of a problem-solving, individualised, home-based occupational therapy intervention (ABLE 2.0), to usual occupational therapy, on activities of daily living (ADL) ability in persons with chronic conditions. DESIGN: A single-centre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial with 10- and 26-week follow-up. SETTING: A Danish municipality. SUBJECTS: Persons with chronic conditions experiencing problems performing ADL tasks (n = 80). INTERVENTIONS: ABLE 2.0 was compared with usual occupational therapy. MAIN MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were self-reported ADL ability (ADL-Interview Performance) and observed ADL motor ability (Assessment of Motor and Process Skills) at Week 10. Secondary outcomes were self-reported ADL ability (ADL-Interview Performance) and observed ADL motor ability (Assessment of Motor and Process Skills) at Week 26, and perceived satisfaction with ADL ability (ADL-Interview Satisfaction) and observed ADL process ability (Assessment of Motor and Process Skills) at Weeks 10 and 26. RESULTS: In total, 78 persons were randomly assigned: 40 to usual occupational therapy and 38 to ABLE 2.0. No statistically significant nor clinically relevant difference between group mean changes in primary outcomes was identified from baseline to Week 10 (ADL-Interview Performance [-0.16; 95% CI: -0.38 to 0.06] and Assessment of Motor and Process Skills ADL motor ability [-0.1; 95% CI: -0.3 to 0.1]). At Week 26, a statistically significant and clinically relevant difference was found in Assessment of Motor and Process Skills ADL motor ability (LS mean change: -0.3; 95% CI: -0.5 to -0.1) between groups. CONCLUSION: ABLE 2.0 was effective in improving observed ADL motor ability at 26 weeks.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of adding occupational therapy or physiotherapy interventions to a standard rehabilitation programme targeted for chronic widespread pain. DESIGN: Randomized active-controlled non-blinded trial. SUBJECTS: Women with chronic widespread pain recruited in a tertiary outpatient clinic. METHODS: Participants were randomized to a two-week, group-based standard rehabilitation programme followed by 16 weeks of group-based occupational therapy (Group BOT, n = 43) or 16 weeks of group-based physiotherapy (Group BPT, n = 42). Group A only received the two-week rehabilitation programme acting as comparator (n = 96). OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills and Short Form-36 (SF36) Mental Component Summary score. RESULTS: Mean changes in motor and process ability measures were clinically and statistically insignificant and without differences across the three groups assessed 88 weeks from baseline. Motor ability measures: -0.006 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.244 to 0.233) in Group BOT; -0.045 (95% CI: -0.291 to 0.202) in Group BPT; and -0.017 (95% CI: -0.248 to 0.213) in Group A, P = 0.903. Process ability measures: 0.087 (95% CI: -0.056 to 0.231) in Group BOT; 0.075 (95% CI: -0.075 to 0.226) in Group BPT; and 0.072 (95% CI: -0.067 to 0.211) in Group A, P = 0.924. Mean changes in patient-reported outcomes were likewise small; clinically and statistically insignificant; and independent of group allocation, except for the SF36 mental component summary score in the BPT group: 8.58 (95% CI: 1.75 to 15.41). CONCLUSION: Participants were on average stable in observation-based measures of functional ability and patient-reported outcomes, except in overall mental well-being, favouring the enhanced intervention. Efficacy of additional interventions on functional ability remains uncertain.
