Using evidence-based co-design to develop a hybrid delivered exercise intervention that aims to increase confidence to exercise in people with haemophilia.

INTRODUCTION: Due to advances in treatments, people with haemophilia (PWH) are living longer. They are not as active as the general population due to joint damage and lack confidence to be active due to concerns about further bleeds and pain. There is a need to facilitate healthy aging through promotion of physical activity (PA) and exercise. Changing patient beliefs and increasing physical literacy and confidence to move are thought to be key to helping PWH become more active. AIM: This paper describes the development of an exercise and behaviour change intervention to improve confidence to exercise in PWH. METHODS: The 4-stage Medical Research Council framework for complex intervention development was used. RESULTS: Stakeholders included 17 PWH and 7 physiotherapists working in haemophilia. Seven online focus group meetings were held. The final intervention is a hybrid 12-week physiotherapist led progressive exercise programme. Classes are 45 min including Pilates, High intensity interval training and balance elements, together with discussion sessions focusing on PA recommendations, the types and benefits of different exercise styles and the effects of PA, together with the effects of aging for PWH. The COM-B model of behaviour change was used to develop the intervention. CONCLUSION: Co-design helps to produce an intervention that understands the stakeholders needs. Through this process the intervention developed to incorporate not only increasing PA but also confidence to exercise. The use of behaviour change theory identified the behaviour techniques included in the intervention and aims to increase physical literacy in this population.

Exercise treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and intervention component analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the components used in exercise interventions for people with symptoms of neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis and identify components associated with successful interventions. DATA SOURCES: Eligible papers published up to April 2023 from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and trial registry websites. REVIEW METHODS: Literature searches were performed by an Information Specialist. We searched for randomised trials evaluating exercise interventions for people with neurogenic claudication symptoms (the primary symptom of lumbar spinal stenosis). Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool Version 2 and the TIDieR checklist for intervention reporting. Details of intervention components were extracted, tabulated, and synthesised using an intervention component analysis approach. RESULTS: We found thirteen trials reporting 23 exercise interventions delivered to 1440 participants. These featured 60 different components. Most exercise interventions included supervision and flexion-based exercises. Balance exercises were rarely included. Exercise components featured more frequently in successful interventions included stretches, strength or trunk muscle exercises, fitness exercises, especially cycling, and psychologically informed approaches. Interpretation is limited by low study numbers and heterogeneity. No conclusions could be drawn about exercise supervision or dose. DISCUSSION: Exercise interventions for people with neurogenic claudication typically feature multiple components. Common features such as supervision, lumbar flexion, and aerobic fitness exercises and also less common features such as stretches, strengthening exercises, and psychologically informed approaches warrant consideration for inclusion when designing and optimising exercise interventions for people with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Prescribing hand strengthening exercise for patients with rheumatoid arthritis; clinical cues influencing occupational therapists' and physiotherapists' judgements.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical judgements of therapists in prescribing the intensity of hand strengthening exercise in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Phase I: Eleven therapists knowledgeable in treating patients with RA subjectively identified seven clinical cues. These were incorporated into 54 hypothetical patient case scenarios. PHASE II: Therapists with ≥2 years post-registration experience and current or recent experience in treating patients with RA were asked to assess 69 case scenarios in total (54 + 15 repeats) and judge what intensity of hand strengthening exercise they would prescribe using the OMNI-Resistance Exercise Scale of perceived exertion. Using responses to the repeated cases, the Cochran-Weiss-Shanteau index of expertise was used to identify therapists who prescribed more consistently. Multiple regression was used to determine which clinical cues were most strongly associated with the intensity of exercise prescribed. A sub-group analysis explored differences between consistent and inconsistent prescribers. RESULTS: Fifty-three therapists took part. Thirty completed all 69 case scenarios. Across all therapists, the three most important clinical cues associated with lower intensity of exercise prescribed were (1) Patient's reported pain intensity whilst practising the exercise (ß = -1.150, p < 0.001), (2) Disease activity (ß = -0.425, p < 0.001) and (3) average hand pain over the last week (ß = -0.353 p < 0.001). Twelve therapists were categorised as consistent prescribers. This group relied on fewer clinical cues (three vs. seven) when judging what intensity of exercise to prescribe. CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into how therapists prescribe hand exercises. Intensity of hand strengthening exercise was influenced by three key clinical cues, including pain intensity and disease activity.

Tailored exercise management (TEMPO) versus usual care for people aged 80 years or older with hip/knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is recommended for all people with osteoarthritis. However, these recommendations are based on randomised clinical trials including people with an average age between 60 and 70 years, and these findings cannot reliably be generalised to people aged 80 years or older. Rapid loss of muscle occurs after 70 years of age, and older people are more likely to also have other health conditions that contribute to difficulties with daily activities and impact on their response to exercise. To improve care for people aged 80 or older with osteoarthritis, it is thought that a tailored exercise intervention targeting both osteoarthritis and any other health conditions they have, may be needed. The aim of this study will be to test if it is possible to conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for people over 80 years of age with hip/knee osteoarthritis of a tailored exercise intervention. METHODS: A multicentre, parallel, 2-group, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study, conducted in ≥ 3 UK NHS physiotherapy outpatient services. Participants (n ≥ 50) with clinical knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and ≥ 1 comorbidity will be recruited by screening referrals to participating NHS physiotherapy outpatient services, via screening of general practice records and via identification of eligible individuals from a cohort study run by our research group. Participants will be randomised (computer-generated: 1:1) to receive either: a 12-week education and tailored exercise intervention (TEMPO); or usual care and written information. The primary feasibility objectives are to estimate: (1) ability to screen and recruit eligible participants; (2) retention of participants, measured by the proportion of participants who provide outcome data at 14-week follow-up. Secondary quantitative objectives are to estimate: (1) participant engagement assessed by physiotherapy session attendance and home exercise adherence; (2) sample size calculation for a definitive RCT. One-to-one semi-structured interviews will explore the experiences of trial participants and physiotherapists delivering the TEMPO programme. DISCUSSION: Progression criteria will be used to determine whether a definitive trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the TEMPO programme is considered feasible with or without modifications to the intervention or trial design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75983430. Registered 3/12/2021. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN75983430.

Economic costs, health-related quality of life outcomes and cost-utility of a physical and psychological group intervention targeted at older adults with neurogenic claudication.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that structured and progressive exercise underpinned by a cognitive behavioural approach can improve functional outcomes in patients with neurogenic claudication (NC). However, evidence surrounding its economic benefits is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the economic costs, health-related quality of life outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST programme) versus best practice advice (BPA) in older adults with NC. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted based on data from a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial. The base-case economic evaluation took the form of an intention-to-treat analysis conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective and separately from a societal perspective. Costs (£ 2018-2019 prices) were collected prospectively over a 12 month follow-up period. A bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with multiple imputation of missing data, was conducted to estimate the incremental cost per QALY gained and the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of the BOOST programme in comparison to BPA. Sensitivity and pre-specified subgroup analyses explored uncertainty and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness estimates. RESULTS: Participants (N = 435) were randomised to the BOOST programme (n = 292) or BPA (n = 143). Mean (standard error [SE]) NHS and PSS costs over 12 months were £1,974 (£118) in the BOOST arm versus £1,827 (£169) in the BPA arm (p = 0.474). Mean (SE) QALY estimates were 0.620 (0.009) versus 0.599 (0.006), respectively (p = 0.093). The probability that the BOOST programme is cost-effective ranged between 67 and 83% (NHS and PSS perspective) and 79-89% (societal perspective) at cost-effectiveness thresholds between £15,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained. INMBs ranged between £145 and £464 at similar cost-effectiveness thresholds. The cost-effectiveness results remained robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The BOOST programme resulted in modest QALY gains over the 12 month follow-up period. Future studies with longer intervention and follow-up periods are needed to address uncertainty around the health-related quality of life impacts and cost-effectiveness of such programmes. Trial registration This study has been registered in the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, reference number ISRCTN12698674. Registered on 10 November 2015.

Development and validation of a prediction model for self-reported mobility decline in community-dwelling older adults.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to develop and validate two models to predict 2-year risk of self-reported mobility decline among community-dwelling older adults. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data from a prospective cohort study of people aged 65 years and over in England. Mobility status was assessed using the EQ-5D-5L mobility question. The models were based on the outcome: Model 1, any mobility decline at 2 years; Model 2, new onset of persistent mobility problems over 2 years. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression was used to select predictors. Model performance was assessed using C-statistics, calibration plot, Brier scores, and decision curve analyses. Models were internally validated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Over 18% of participants who could walk reported mobility decline at year 2 (Model 1), and 7.1% with no mobility problems at baseline, reported new onset of mobility problems after 2 years (Model 2). Thirteen and 6 out of 31 variables were selected as predictors in Models 1 and 2, respectively. Models 1 and 2 had a C-statistic of 0.740 and 0.765 (optimism < 0.013), and Brier score = 0.136 and 0.069, respectively. CONCLUSION: Two prediction models for mobility decline were developed and internally validated. They are based on self-reported variables and could serve as simple assessments in primary care after external validation.

Longitudinal qualitative study of living with neurogenic claudication.

OBJECTIVES: Neurogenic claudication (NC) causes pain and reduced mobility, particularly in older people, and can negatively affect mental and social well-being, so limiting successful ageing. This qualitative study explored how people with NC changed over 12 months. DESIGN: A longitudinal qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a UK clinical trial of a physiotherapy intervention for NC. PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were undertaken at baseline, 1 month after receiving any intervention and at 12 months. We analysed 30 sets of three interviews. RESULTS: Interview data were summarised for each time point into biopsychosocial domains: pain, mobility and activities of daily living, psychological impact, and social and recreational participation. Through comparative analysis we explored participant trajectories over time.Progressive improvement in at least one domain was experienced by 13 participants, but there was variability in trajectories with early improvements that remained the same, transient changes and no change also commonly observed.Eleven participants described co-present improvement trajectories in all domains. Three participants described co-present improvement in all domains except participation; one had never stopped their participation and two had unattainable expectations. Five participants described co-present improvement in one domain and deterioration in another and 14 participants described co-present no change in one domain and change in another.There was evidence of interaction between domains; for example, improved mobility led to improved participation and for some participants, specific factors influenced change. Of the 15 participants who experienced improved participation, 10 reported improvements in all other domains and five participants did not; for two, pain did not prevent participation, one used a walking aid and two had a positive psychological outlook. CONCLUSION: The daily lived experiences of older adults with NC are variable and include interaction between biopsychosocial domains. Therapist understanding of these trajectories and their interactions may help to provide personalised therapy TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12698674.

Consensus on a standardised treatment pathway algorithm for lumbar spinal stenosis: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative spinal condition in older adults associated with disability, diminished quality of life, and substantial healthcare costs. Individual symptoms and needs vary. With sparse and sometimes inconsistent evidence to guide clinical decision-making, variable clinical care may lead to unsatisfactory patient outcomes and inefficient use of healthcare resources. METHODS: A three-phase modified Delphi study comprising four consensus rounds was conducted on behalf of the International Taskforce for the Diagnosis and Management of LSS to develop a treatment algorithm based on multi-professional international expert consensus. Participants with expertise in the assessment and management of people with LSS were invited using an international distribution process used for two previous Delphi studies led by the Taskforce. Separate treatment pathways for patients with different symptom types and severity were developed and incorporated into a proposed treatment algorithm through consensus rounds 1 to 3. Agreement with the proposed algorithm was evaluated in the final consensus round. RESULTS: The final algorithm combines stratified and stepped approaches. When indicated, immediate investigation and surgery is advocated. Otherwise, a stepped approach is suggested when self-directed care is unsatisfactory. This starts with tailored rehabilitation, then more complex multidisciplinary care, investigations and surgery options if needed. Treatment options in each step depend on clinical phenotype and symptom severity. Treatment response guides pathway entrance and exit points. Of 397 study participants, 86% rated their agreement ≥ 4 for the proposed algorithm on a 0-6 scale, of which 22% completely agreed. Only 7% disagreed. Over 70% of participants felt that the algorithm would be useful for clinicians in public healthcare (both primary care and specialist settings) and in private healthcare settings, and that a simplified version would help patients in shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: International and multi-professional agreement was achieved for a proposed LSS treatment algorithm developed through expert consensus. The algorithm advocates different pathway options depending on clinical indications. It is not intended as a treatment protocol and will require evaluation against current care for clinical and cost-effectiveness. It may, however, serve as a clinical guide until evidence is sufficient to inform a fully stratified care model.

Understanding prescribed dose in hand strengthening exercise for rheumatoid arthritis: A secondary analysis of the SARAH trial.

OBJECTIVE: 1) To identify therapist or participant characteristics associated with prescribed dose of hand strengthening exercise in adults with rheumatoid arthritis and 2) To determine the impact of dose prescribed on outcome (hand function and grip strength). METHODS: Overall dose was calculated using area under the curve (AUC). Analysis 1 assessed the association between therapist professional background, therapist grade, baseline participant physical and psychological characteristics and prescribed dose. Analyses 2 and 3 estimated the relationship between prescribed dose and overall hand function and grip strength. Generalised estimating equation linear regression analysis was used. RESULTS: Analysis 1: Being treated by an occupational therapist (ß = -297.0, 95% CI -398.6, -195.4), metacarpophalangeal joint deformity (ß = -24.1, 95% CI -42.3, -5.9), a higher number of swollen wrist/hand joints (ß = -11.4, 95% CI -21.6, -1.2) and the participant feeling downhearted and low all of the time (ß = -293.6, 95% CI -436.1, -151.1) were associated with being prescribed a lower dose. Being treated by a grade 6 therapist (ß = 159.1, 95% CI 65.7, 252.5), higher baseline grip strength (ß = 0.15, 95% CI 0.02, 0.28) and greater participant confidence to exercise without fear of making symptoms worse (ß = 18.9, 95% CI 1.5, 36.3) were associated with being prescribed a higher dose. Analyses 2 and 3: Higher dose was associated with greater overall hand function (ß = 0.005, 95% CI 0.001, 0.010) and full-hand grip strength (ß = 0.014, 95% CI 0.000, 0.025) at 4-month. CONCLUSION: Higher dose was associated with better clinical outcomes. Prescription of hand strengthening exercise is associated with both therapist and participant characteristics.

The Clinical Effectiveness of a Physiotherapy Delivered Physical and Psychological Group Intervention for Older Adults With Neurogenic Claudication: The BOOST Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Neurogenic claudication (NC) is a debilitating spinal condition affecting older adults' mobility and quality of life. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of 438 participants evaluated the effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST program) compared to physiotherapy assessment and tailored advice (best practice advice [BPA]) for older adults with NC. Participants were identified from spinal clinics (community and secondary care) and general practice records and randomized 2:1 to the BOOST program or BPA. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months. Data were also collected at 6 months. Other outcomes included ODI walking item, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and falls. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 74.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 6.0) and 57% (246/435) were female. There was no significant difference in ODI scores between treatment groups at 12 months (adjusted mean difference [MD]: -1.4 [95% confidence intervals (CI) -4.03, 1.17]), but, at 6 months, ODI scores favored the BOOST program (adjusted MD: -3.7 [95% CI -6.27, -1.06]). At 12 months, the BOOST program resulted in greater improvements in walking capacity (6MWT MD: 21.7m [95% CI 5.96, 37.38]) and ODI walking item (MD: -0.2 [95% CI -0.45, -0.01]) and reduced falls risk (odds ratio: 0.6 [95% CI 0.40, 0.98]) compared to BPA. No serious adverse events were related to either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The BOOST program substantially improved mobility for older adults with NC. Future iterations of the program will consider ways to improve long-term pain-related disability. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ISRCTN12698674.

Exercise to prevent shoulder problems after breast cancer surgery: the PROSPER RCT.

BACKGROUND: Upper limb problems are common after breast cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a structured exercise programme compared with usual care on upper limb function, health-related outcomes and costs in women undergoing breast cancer surgery. DESIGN: This was a two-arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative research, process evaluation and parallel economic analysis; the unit of randomisation was the individual (allocated ratio 1 : 1). SETTING: Breast cancer centres, secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥ 18 years who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and were at higher risk of developing shoulder problems. Women were screened to identify their risk status. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received usual-care information leaflets. Those randomised to exercise were referred to physiotherapy for an early, structured exercise programme (three to six face-to-face appointments that included strengthening, physical activity and behavioural change strategies). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was upper limb function at 12 months as assessed using the Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were function (Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire subscales), pain, complications (e.g. wound-related complications, lymphoedema), health-related quality of life (e.g. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Short Form questionnaire-12 items), physical activity and health service resource use. The economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net monetary benefit gained from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group assignment, but data collectors were blinded. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2017, we randomised 392 participants from 17 breast cancer centres across England: 196 (50%) to the usual-care group and 196 (50%) to the exercise group. Ten participants (10/392; 3%) were withdrawn at randomisation and 32 (8%) did not provide complete baseline data. A total of 175 participants (89%) from each treatment group provided baseline data. Participants' mean age was 58.1 years (standard deviation 12.1 years; range 28-88 years). Most participants had undergone axillary node clearance surgery (327/392; 83%) and 317 (81%) had received radiotherapy. Uptake of the exercise treatment was high, with 181 out of 196 (92%) participants attending at least one physiotherapy appointment. Compliance with exercise was good: 143 out of 196 (73%) participants completed three or more physiotherapy sessions. At 12 months, 274 out of 392 (70%) participants returned questionnaires. Improvement in arm function was greater in the exercise group [mean Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of 16.3 (standard deviation 17.6)] than in the usual-care group [mean Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of 23.7 (standard deviation 22.9)] at 12 months for intention-to-treat (adjusted mean difference Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of -7.81, 95% confidence interval -12.44 to -3.17; p = 0.001) and complier-average causal effect analyses (adjusted mean difference -8.74, 95% confidence interval -13.71 to -3.77; p ≤ 0.001). At 12 months, pain scores were lower and physical health-related quality of life was higher in the exercise group than in the usual-care group (Short Form questionnaire-12 items, mean difference 4.39, 95% confidence interval 1.74 to 7.04; p = 0.001). We found no differences in the rate of adverse events or lymphoedema over 12 months. The qualitative findings suggested that women found the exercise programme beneficial and enjoyable. Exercise accrued lower costs (-£387, 95% CI -£2491 to £1718) and generated more quality-adjusted life years (0.029, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.056) than usual care over 12 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that exercise was more cost-effective and that the results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Exercise was relatively cheap to implement (£129 per participant) and associated with lower health-care costs than usual care and improved health-related quality of life. Benefits may accrue beyond the end of the trial. LIMITATIONS: Postal follow-up was lower than estimated; however, the study was adequately powered. No serious adverse events directly related to the intervention were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provided robust evidence that referral for early, supported exercise after breast cancer surgery improved shoulder function in those at risk of shoulder problems and was associated with lower health-care costs than usual care and improved health-related quality of life. FUTURE WORK: Future work should focus on the implementation of exercise programmes in clinical practice for those at highest risk of shoulder problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN35358984. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women. Women now live longer because the detection and treatment of cancer has improved over the last 40 years. The side effects of breast cancer treatments can lead to complications, such as difficulties with arm movements, arm swelling (lymphoedema), pain and poor quality of life. These problems can last for many years after the cancer has been treated. Usual care after breast cancer surgery is to give patients an information leaflet explaining arm exercises that they can undertake after their operation. Offering exercise support from a physiotherapist may be a better way to help those at risk of developing shoulder problems after breast cancer treatment than providing a leaflet only. WHAT DID WE DO?: We compared two strategies to prevent shoulder problems in women having breast cancer treatment: information leaflets and an exercise programme. We invited women with a new diagnosis of breast cancer who were at higher risk of developing shoulder problems than other women with a new diagnosis of breast cancer. We recruited 392 women aged 28­88 years from 17 breast cancer units across England. Women were allocated to one of two groups by chance using a computer. Everyone was given information leaflets that explained what type of exercises to do after surgery. Half of the women (n = 196) were then invited to take part in an exercise programme, supported by a trained physiotherapist. These women followed a programme of shoulder mobility, stretching and strengthening exercises for up to 1 year. We measured changes in arm function, pain, arm swelling (lymphoedema) and physical and mental quality of life, and the cost of treatments during the whole first year of recovery, in everyone. We also spoke to the women and physiotherapists to find out whether or not these treatment strategies were acceptable to them. WHAT DID WE FIND OUT?: Women doing the exercise programme had better arm function, less pain and better quality of life than the women given an information leaflet only. Women said that the exercise programme helped with their recovery during cancer treatment. Exercise was cheap to deliver (£129 per person) and led to improved overall quality of life at 1 year after breast cancer surgery.

Components, design and effectiveness of digital physical rehabilitation interventions for older people: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With the rapid advancement in digital technologies, the use of digital health applications is increasing day by day. Although a large number of digital applications have been developed for rehabilitation of older people, there has been no review of the evidence for effectiveness of these interventions. METHODS: The aim of our study was to review the evidence of digital rehabilitation interventions on outcomes including pain, function and quality of life in older people. We focused on digital interventions that are designed to improve and restore physical functioning. We searched six electronic bibliographic databases and included randomised controlled trials. Cochrane risk of bias tool and Cochrane's Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to evaluate the risk of bias and grade the evidence. RESULTS: Eight trials were included. The short-term effects of digital rehabilitation interventions on physical activity, quality of life, vertigo symptoms and falls are uncertain. Quality of trials was rated as very low to moderate evidence. CONCLUSION: More research is needed to estimate effectiveness of these interventions.

The online version of an evidence-based hand exercise program for people with rheumatoid arthritis: A mixed-method, proof-of-concept study.

INTRODUCTION: The Strengthening And stretching for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand (SARAH) program is a tailored, 12-week hand and arm exercise program recommended in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. It includes seven mobility exercises and four strength exercises against resistance. An online version of the SARAH program (mySARAH) has been developed to allow direct access for people with rheumatoid arthritis. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical impact of mySARAH in people with rheumatoid arthritis. STUDY DESIGN: This is a mixed-method, proof-of-concept study. METHODS: mySARAH is a self-guided, online version of the SARAH program with six exercise training and review sessions. Participants were observed as they worked through four of the six online sessions. They were also asked to demonstrate the SARAH exercises. Participants undertook two sessions independently at home. At the baseline and 12 weeks, hand pain, hand function, and grip strength were measured. At 12 weeks, feedback on mySARAH, and perceived recovery were also collected. Approximately one month later, a telephone follow-up was conducted to explore participants' experiences with mySARAH. Pain, hand function, and perceived recovery were also assessed. RESULTS: Eleven participants (males/females: 3/8) with a median (interquartile range) age of 63 (17) years took part. Six participants completed all mySARAH sessions. About 512 exercise and load-setting demonstrations were observed and 491 (96%) were performed correctly. Improvements in grip strength and hand function were observed with no increase in pain. Most of the participants reported improvement and provided positive feedback. All participants perceived mySARAH as a useful resource. Features to improve the online exercise diary such as recording and tracking exercise dose and face-to-face or remote support by phone or Skype from health professionals were suggested to optimize user engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evaluation of mySARAH indicates that mySARAH was feasible, acceptable, and beneficial to participants. Further iteration and evaluation are needed before large-scale implementation.

The Effect of Therapeutic Exercise Interventions on Physical and Psychosocial Outcomes in Adults Aged 80 Years and Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of therapeutic exercise on physical and psychosocial outcomes in community-dwelling adults aged 80 years or older. Databases were searched from inception to July 8, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were screened by two reviewers who extracted data and assessed study quality. Sixteen RCTs (1,660 participants) were included. Compared to nonexercise controls there was no evidence of an effect of exercise on performance based (standardized mean differences: 0.58, 95% confidence interval: [-0.19, 1.36]; I2: 89%; six RCTs; 290 participants; very low-quality evidence) or self-reported physical function (standardized mean differences: 1.35, 95% confidence interval: [-0.78, 3.48]; I2: 96%; three RCTs; 280 participants; very low-quality evidence) at short-medium term follow-up. Four RCTs reporting psychosocial outcomes could not be combined in meta-analysis and reported varying results. Exercise appeared to reduce the risk of mortality during follow-up (risk ratio: 0.47, 95% confidence interval: [0.32, 0.70]; I2: 0.0%; six RCTs; 1,222 participants; low-quality evidence).

Exercise versus usual care after non-reconstructive breast cancer surgery (UK PROSPER): multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a structured exercise programme improved functional and health related quality of life outcomes compared with usual care for women at high risk of upper limb disability after breast cancer surgery. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, superiority, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. SETTING: 17 UK National Health Service cancer centres. PARTICIPANTS: 392 women undergoing breast cancer surgery, at risk of postoperative upper limb morbidity, randomised (1:1) to usual care with structured exercise (n=196) or usual care alone (n=196). INTERVENTIONS: Usual care (information leaflets) only or usual care plus a physiotherapy led exercise programme, incorporating stretching, strengthening, physical activity, and behavioural change techniques to support adherence to exercise, introduced at 7-10 days postoperatively, with two further appointments at one and three months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes included DASH subscales, pain, complications, health related quality of life, and resource use, from a health and personal social services perspective. RESULTS: Between 26 January 2016 and 31 July 2017, 951 patients were screened and 392 (mean age 58.1 years) were randomly allocated, with 382 (97%) eligible for intention to treat analysis. 181 (95%) of 191 participants allocated to exercise attended at least one appointment. Upper limb function improved after exercise compared with usual care (mean DASH 16.3 (SD 17.6) for exercise (n=132); 23.7 (22.9) usual care (n=138); adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval 3.17 to 12.44; P=0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured exercise over usual care, with lower pain intensity at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on numerical rating scale -0.68, -1.23 to -0.12; P=0.02) and fewer arm disability symptoms at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast+4 (FACT-B+4) -2.02, -3.11 to -0.93; P=0.001). No increase in complications, lymphoedema, or adverse events was noted in participants allocated to exercise. Exercise accrued lower costs per patient (on average -£387 (€457; $533) (95% confidence interval -£2491 to £1718; 2015 pricing) and was cost effective compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: The PROSPER exercise programme was clinically effective and cost effective and reduced upper limb disability one year after breast cancer treatment in patients at risk of treatment related postoperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN35358984.

Risk Factors for Mobility Decline in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Literature Review.

Mobility is essential to maintaining independence for older adults. This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence about self-reported risk factors for self-reported mobility decline; and to provide an overview of published prognostic models for self-reported mobility decline among community-dwelling older adults. Databases were searched from inception to June 2, 2020. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers who extracted data and assessed study quality. Sixty-one studies (45,187 participants) were included, providing information on 107 risk factors. High-quality evidence and moderate/large effect sizes for the association with mobility decline were found for older age beyond 75 years, the presence of widespread pain, and mobility modifications. Moderate-high quality evidence and small effect sizes were found for a further 21 factors. Three model development studies demonstrated acceptable model performance, limited by high risk of bias. These findings should be considered in intervention development, and in developing a prediction instrument for practical application.

Role of physiotherapy in supporting recovery from breast cancer treatment: a qualitative study embedded within the UK PROSPER trial.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of women with breast cancer taking part in an early physiotherapy-led exercise intervention compared with the experiences of those receiving usual care. To understand physiotherapists' experience of delivering the trial intervention. To explore acceptability of the intervention and issues related to the implementation of the Prevention Of Shoulder Problems (PROSPER) programme from participant and physiotherapist perspective. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews with thematic analysis. SETTING: UK National Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty participants at high risk of shoulder problems after breast cancer surgery recruited to the UK PROSPER trial (10 each from the intervention arm and control arm), and 11 physiotherapists who delivered the intervention. Trial participants were sampled using convenience sampling. Physiotherapists were purposively sampled from high and low recruiting sites. RESULTS: Participants described that the PROSPER exercise intervention helped them feel confident in what their body could do and helped them regain a sense of control in the context of cancer treatment, which was largely disempowering. Control arm participants expressed less of a sense of control over their well-being. Physiotherapists found the exercise intervention enjoyable to deliver and felt it was valuable to their patients. The extra time allocated for appointments during intervention delivery made physiotherapists feel they were providing optimal care, being the 'perfect physio'. Lessons were learnt about the implementation of a complex exercise intervention for women with breast cancer, and the issues raised will inform the development of a future implementation strategy. CONCLUSIONS: A physiotherapist-delivered early supported exercise intervention with integrated behavioural strategies helped women at risk of shoulder problems following breast cancer treatment to feel more confident in their ability to mobilise their arm post-surgery. A physiotherapist-delivered early supported exercise intervention with integrated behavioural strategies may address the sense of powerlessness that many women experience during breast cancer treatment.Trial registration number ISRCTN35358984.

A hand exercise mobile app for people with rheumatoid arthritis in Turkey: design, development and usability study.

To design and develop a smartphone application for a structured hand exercise programme for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Turkey and to test its usability. We followed a two-stage process: (1) Design and Development and (2) Usability testing. In stage 1, we used a qualitative user-centered design approach. We conducted a focus group (8 therapists and people with RA) to discuss the content, features and design to produce a prototype of the application. In a second focus group session, the participants tested the prototype, provided feedback and further revisions were made. In stage 2, 17 participants with RA used the app for 4 to 6 weeks. The System Usability Scale and the adapted Usability, Satisfaction and Ease to Use Questionnaires were used to measure usability, ease of use. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore user experiences with the application with 17 participants. In stage 1, the following themes were identified from the focus groups (a) login techniques (b) self-monitoring (c) exercises, (d) exercise diary, (e) information, (f) behavioral change and encouragement (g) exercise adherence. In stage 2, 3 themes were determined from interviews: (a) learning and accuracy, (b) ease of use, (c) motivation and adherence. USE and SUS scores indicated that users reported a high level of usability, satisfaction and ease of use. A mobile app for hand exercise for people with RA was developed using a mixed-method and iterative design. Participants perceived the mobile app as easy to use with high levels of satisfaction.