RESUMO
Purpose: Neck pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal issue among bike drivers, often resulting from extended static postures, repetitive head movements, and exposure to vibrations. This study aims to assess the connection between cervical ROM, neck proprioception, CVA, and QOL in bike drivers with neck pain compared to those without neck pain so that the targeted interventions can be developed to enhance their well-being. Methods: A cross-sectional study involving 100 bike drivers aged 20-50 years was conducted, split into two groups: those with neck pain (n=50) and those without neck pain (n=50). Cervical ROM was measured using a smartphone, neck proprioception was assessed through a head repositioning test, and CVA was determined using lateral-view photographs with a plumb line. The Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire was employed to evaluate QOL. Data analysis was conducted using independent t-tests and Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results: Bike drivers with neck pain exhibited significantly reduced cervical ROM (p-value=<0.001), impaired neck proprioception (p-value=<0.001), and decreased CVA (p-value=<0.001) compared to their counterparts without neck pain. A strong negative correlation was found between neck pain and QOL, with lower scores in all eight domains of the SF-36. Cervical ROM, neck proprioception, and CVA showed moderate correlations with various QOL domains (p-value=<0.05). Conclusion: Neck pain in bike drivers is linked to decrease cervical ROM, compromised neck proprioception, and reduced CVA. These factors correlate with a lower quality of life, both physical and mental domains. Interventions addressing these aspects may enhance the quality of life for bike drivers experiencing neck pain.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: After a stroke, inpatients often receive less than the recommended dose of therapy. Telerehabilitation may assist by providing personalised rehabilitation programmes without face-to-face therapy time. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of an individualised programme of upper-limb rehabilitation that is delivered via an online rehabilitation platform for inpatient stroke survivors. METHODS: Stroke survivors were recruited from three stroke units in one NHS Board in Scotland and randomised to the intervention (personalised upper-limb exercise programme delivered via an online physiotherapy platform for four weeks, up to 30 min five times per week, in addition to usual care) or the control group (usual care). The main outcomes are related to recruitment, attrition, adherence and safety. The clinical measures were the Action Research Arm Test, Trunk Impairment Scale and Modified Ashworth Scale. The intervention participants, their carers and physiotherapists completed questionnaires on the acceptability of the intervention. RESULTS: Twenty-six participants, 42% males, were recruited around three weeks post-stroke, on average. There were 13 participants in each group, with a mean age of 69 years (SD of 12) and 67 years (SD of 11) for the control and intervention groups, respectively. Overall, 47% of those screened for eligibility were randomised, and attrition was 23% in the intervention group mainly due to discharge before the end of the intervention. Participants who adhered to their programme (completed more than two-thirds), generally those with an engaged carer, demonstrated a trend toward improved clinical outcomes. Overall, the patients, carers and physiotherapists were positive regarding the intervention. There was a total of five reported adverse events, none of which were related to the study. CONCLUSION: An upper-limb unsupervised exercise intervention using an online physiotherapy platform for inpatient stroke survivors is feasible, safe and acceptable to patients, carers and physiotherapists. A fully powered RCT is warranted to investigate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of such interventions for this patient group.
