Mapping interventional components and behavior change techniques used to promote self-management in people with multimorbidity: a scoping review.

Ageing populations and improved survival, have contributed to a rise in the number of people living with multimorbidity, raising issues related to polypharmacy, treatment burden, competing priorities and poor coordination of care. Self-management programs are increasingly included as an essential component of interventions to improve outcomes in this population. However, an overview of how interventions supporting self-management in patients with multimorbidity is missing. This scoping review focused on mapping the literature on patient-centered interventions for people living with multimorbidity. We searched several databases, clinical registries, and grey literature for RCTs published between 1990-2019 describing interventions that supported self-management in people with multimorbidity. We included 72 studies that were found to be very heterogeneous when it comes to the population, delivery modes and modalities, intervention elements and facilitators. The results pointed to an extensive use of cognitive behavioral therapy as a basis for interventions, as well as behavior change theories and disease management frameworks. The most coded behavior change techniques stemmed from the categories Social Support, Feedback and monitoring and Goals and Planning. To allow for implementation of effective interventions in clinical practice, improved reporting of intervention mechanisms in RCTs is warranted.

Study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial of personalized exercise therapy and self-management support for people with multimorbidity: The MOBILIZE study.

Background: Despite the great individual and societal burden associated with multimorbidity, little is known about how to effectively manage it. Objective: The aim of this multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate the 12-month effects of a personalized exercise therapy and self-management support program in addition to usual care in people with multimorbidity. Design: This is a protocol for a pragmatic, parallel-group (1:1 ratio), superiority RCT conducted at five intervention sites (two hospitals, a private practice physiotherapy clinic and two municipal rehabilitation centers) in Region Zealand, Denmark. A total of 228 persons with multimorbidity aged 18 years or older, will be randomly allocated to one of two groups. Both groups will receive usual care, defined as routine care for multimorbidity at the discretion of the treating doctor, while the intervention group will also participate in a 12-week exercise therapy and self-management support program tailored to people with multimorbidity at one of the intervention sites. The primary outcome will be the between-group difference in change in EQ-5D-5L from baseline to the follow-up at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include objectively-measured physical function and physical activity, inflammatory markers, disease and treatment burden, anxiety, depression, stress, sleep, pain and other self-reported parameters. In parallel with the RCT, an observational cohort will follow persons aged ≥18 years with multimorbidity not adhering to all eligibility criteria, as well as people fulfilling all eligibility criteria, but unwilling to participate in the RCT. This study was approved by the Regional Committee on Health Research Ethics for Region Zealand (SJ-857) and results will be communicated in scientific papers, at relevant conferences and to a broader audience. Discussion: Exercise therapy and self-management support is safe and effective in people with single conditions. However, it is still unclear whether this holds true for individuals with multimorbidity. This pragmatic, multicenter RCT will provide high-quality evidence on the benefits and harms of exercise therapy and self-management support and, if the results support it, lead to the development of a plan for implementation in clinical practice.

Personalised exercise therapy and self-management support for people with multimorbidity: feasibility of the MOBILIZE intervention.

BACKGROUND: Exercise therapy is safe and effective in people with single conditions, but the feasibility in people with two or more conditions is unclear. Therefore, the aim was to evaluate the feasibility of exercise therapy and self-management in people with multimorbidity prior to a randomised, controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: This was a mixed-methods feasibility study performed in two general hospitals and one psychiatric hospital. 20 adult patients (8 females; mean age (SD) 67 (6.9)) with at least two long-term conditions and a score of ≥ 3 on Disease Burden Impact Scale for at least one condition (at least moderate limitations of daily activities) and of ≥ 2 for at least one other condition. Patients with unstable health conditions, at risk of serious adverse events (SAE) or with terminal conditions were excluded. Participants received 12 weeks of exercise (18 60-min group-based and 6 home-based sessions) and self-management support (6 90-min group-based sessions) supervised by physiotherapists. Pre-defined progression to RCT criteria were the primary outcomes and included recruitment rate (acceptable 20 participants in 3 months), retention through follow-up (75% retention), compliance (75% complete > 9 of exercise and > 3 self-management sessions), outcome burden (80% do not find outcomes too burdensome), improvement in quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and function (6-min walk test; ≥ 50% experience clinically relevant improvements) and intervention-related SAEs (No SAEs). Furthermore, a purposeful sample including eleven participants and two facilitators were interviewed about their experiences of participating/facilitating. Qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Recruitment rate (20 in 49 days), retention (85%), outcome burden (95%), and SAEs (0 related to intervention) were acceptable, while compliance (70%) and improvements (35% in quality of life, 46% in function) were not (amendment needed before proceeding to RCT). The intervention was found acceptable by both participants and physiotherapists with some barriers among participants relating to managing multiple chronic conditions while caring for others or maintaining a job. Physiotherapists expressed a need for additional training. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise therapy and self-management are feasible in people with multimorbidity. The subsequent RCT, amending the intervention according to progression criteria and feedback, will determine whether the intervention is superior to usual care alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04645732 Open Science Framework https://osf.io/qk6yg/.

Personalised exercise therapy and self-management support for people with multimorbidity: Development of the MOBILIZE intervention.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there is no intervention which includes personalised exercise therapy and self-management support for people with multimorbidity, although these interventions may be as effective as for people with single chronic conditions. Therefore, we developed a novel intervention, including personalised exercise therapy and self-management support for people with multimorbidity. METHODS: We followed the Medical Research Council framework and conducted one scoping review, five systematic reviews, two registry-based studies, one qualitative interview study and a mixed-methods feasibility study. Following an iterative approach, together with feedback from people with multimorbidity and relevant stakeholders, we developed the MOBILIZE intervention. RESULTS: The intervention included 24 (60 minutes) sessions of personalised exercise therapy and 24 (30 minutes) sessions of self-management support twice a week for 12 weeks, delivered in small groups by specifically trained physiotherapists. The intervention targets physiological, psychosocial, behavioural, and contextual factors to improve health-related quality of life and physical function in people living with multimorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a personalised exercise therapy and self-management support programme for people with multimorbidity. The intervention will be tested for its safety and effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial.

Benefits and Harms of Interventions With Surgery Compared to Interventions Without Surgery for Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the benefits and harms of interventions with and without surgery for musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL, all up to January 7, 2021. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs (English, German, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian) of interventions with and without surgery conducted in any setting for any non-fracture MSK condition in adults (mean age: 18+ years) evaluating the outcomes on a continuous (benefits) or count (harms) scale. Outcomes were pain, self-reported physical function, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and death at 1 year. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects metaanalyses for MSK conditions where there were data from at least 2 trials. RESULTS: One hundred RCTs (n = 12 645 patients) across 28 different conditions at 9 body sites were included. For 9 out of 13 conditions with data on pain (exceptions include some spine conditions), 11 out of 11 for function, and 9 out of 9 for quality of life, there were no clinically relevant differences (standardized mean difference of 0.50 or above) between interventions with and without surgery. For 13 out of 16 conditions with data on SAEs and 16 out of 16 for death, there were no differences in harms. Only 6 trials were at low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The low certainty of evidence does not support recommending surgery over nonsurgical alternatives for most MSK conditions with available RCTs. Further high-quality RCTs may change this conclusion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(6):312-344. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11075.

Putting the pieces together: A qualitative study exploring perspectives on self-management and exercise behavior among people living with multimorbidity, healthcare professionals, relatives, and patient advocates.

Background Behavior change and exercise are considered critical for successful self-management in people with multimorbidity, however, little is known about people's needs, experiences, and preferences. Purpose The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore the perspectives of people living with multimorbidity, healthcare professionals, relatives, and patient advocates in relation to self-management and exercise behavior. Research design Analysis was carried out by means of a hybrid inductive-deductive approach using Framework Analysis that enabled the subsequent use of the COM-B model in relation to the study of exercise behavior specifically. Study sample We conducted 17 interviews (9 focus groups; 8 key informants) with 48 informants from four groups (22 people living with multimorbidity, 17 healthcare professionals, 5 relatives, and 5 patient advocates). Data analysis Through an inductive Framework analysis, we constructed three themes: Patient education, supporting behavior change, and lack of a "burning platform." Subsequent deductive application of the COM-B profile (applied solely to data related to exercise behavior) unveiled a variety of barriers to exercise and self-management support (pain, fatigue, breathlessness, lack of motivation, financial issues, accessibility, decreased social support). Results Overall, the four groups shared common understandings while also expressing unique challenges. Conclusions Future interventions and/or policies targeting exercise behavior in people living with multimorbidity should address some of the barriers identified in this study.

Validity of Self-Reported Running Distance.

It is unclear whether there is a difference between subjective evaluation and objective global positioning systems (GPS) measurement of running distance. The purpose of this study was to investigate if such difference exists. A total of 100 participants (51% men; median age, 41.5; body mass, 78.1 kg ±13.8 SD) completed a run of free choice, then subjectively reported the distance in kilometer (km). This information was subsequently compared with the distance derived from a nondifferential GPS watch using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman's 95% limits of agreement. No significant difference was found between the mean paired differences between subjective evaluations and GPS measurements (1.86%, 95% confidence interval = -1.53%; 5.25%, p = 0.96). The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement revealed considerable variation (lower limit = -28% and upper limit = 40%). Such variation exceeds the clinical error range of 10%. In conclusion, the mean running distance (km) is similar between self-reporting and GPS measurements. However, researchers should consider using GPS measurements in favor of subjective reporting of running distance because of considerable variation on an individual level.