Exercise facilities for neurologically disabled populations - Perceptions from the fitness industry.

BACKGROUND: People with neurological disabilities (pwND) face many barriers to undertaking physical activity. One option for exercise alongside formal physiotherapy is local fitness facilities but accessibility is often found wanting and gyms are seen as unwelcoming to pwND. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this exploratory study was to investigate the perceptions of fitness facility managers with respect to exercise for pwND in a gym environment. The aim was to identify potential barriers to provision by the fitness industry for pwND. METHODS: The participants included those who were in a position to influence provision at a policy level and those working at management level within fitness providers. A mixed methods approach was used: a quantitative questionnaire and 4 qualitative interviews. Descriptive and correlational analysis, thematic content analysis and concurrent triangulation analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Specially trained staff is perceived to be necessary to make fitness facilities accessible for pwND. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring the provision of specially trained staff to support pwND to exercise in gyms may be the main barrier to provision for this population. Investigation into the standard training of fitness professionals combining the expertise of neurological physiotherapists with that of fitness professionals to meet the needs of pwND would be advantageous.

Economic evaluation of a brief education, self-management and upper limb exercise training in people with rheumatoid arthritis (EXTRA) programme: a trial-based analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of the Education, Self-management and Upper Limb Exercise Training in People with RA (EXTRA) programme compared with usual care. METHODS: A within-trial incremental cost-utility analysis was conducted with 108 participants randomized to either the EXTRA programme (n = 52) or usual care (n = 56). A health care perspective was assumed for the primary analysis with a 36 week follow-up. Resource use information was collected on interventions, medication, primary and secondary care contacts, private health care and social care costs. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from the EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire responses at baseline, 12 and 36 weeks. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, total QALYs gained were higher in the EXTRA programme, leading to an increase of 0.0296 QALYs. The mean National Health Service (NHS) costs per participant were slightly higher in the EXTRA programme (by £82), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2770 per additional QALY gained. Thus the EXTRA programme was cost effective from an NHS perspective when assessed against the threshold of £20 000-£30 000/QALY gained. Overall, costs were lower in the EXTRA programme compared with usual care, suggesting it was the dominant treatment option from a societal perspective. At a willingness-to-pay of £20 000/QALY gained, there was a 65% probability that the EXTRA programme was the most cost-effective option. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses accounting for missing data, changing the cost perspective and removing cost outliers. CONCLUSION: The physiotherapist-led EXTRA programme represents a cost-effective use of resources compared with usual care and leads to lower health care costs and work absence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register; http://www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn/ (ISRCTN14268051).

Long-term clinical benefits and costs of an integrated rehabilitation programme compared with outpatient physiotherapy for chronic knee pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic knee pain is a major cause of disability in the elderly. Management guidelines recommend exercise and self-management interventions as effective treatments. The authors previously described a rehabilitation programme integrating exercise and self-management [Enabling Self-management and Coping with Arthritic knee Pain through Exercise (ESCAPE-knee pain)] that produced short-term improvements in pain and physical function, but sustaining these improvements is difficult. Moreover, the programme is untried in clinical environments, where it would ultimately be delivered. OBJECTIVES: To establish the feasibility of ESCAPE-knee pain and compare its clinical effectiveness and costs with outpatient physiotherapy. DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient physiotherapy department and community centre. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four people with chronic knee pain. INTERVENTIONS: Outpatient physiotherapy compared with ESCAPE-knee pain. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was physical function assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Secondary outcomes included pain, objective functional performance, anxiety, depression, exercise-related health beliefs and healthcare utilisation. All outcomes were assessed at baseline and 12 months after completing the interventions (primary endpoint). ANCOVA investigated between-group differences. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated similar improvements in clinical outcomes. Outpatient physiotherapy cost pound 130 per person and the healthcare utilisation costs of participants over 1 year were pound 583. The ESCAPE-knee pain programme cost pound 64 per person and the healthcare utilisation costs of participants over 1 year were pound 320. CONCLUSIONS: ESCAPE-knee pain can be delivered as a community-based integrated rehabilitation programme for people with chronic knee pain. Both ESCAPE-knee pain and outpatient physiotherapy produced sustained physical and psychosocial benefits, but ESCAPE-knee pain cost less and was more cost-effective.

Non-exercise physical therapies for musculoskeletal conditions.

Management of musculoskeletal conditions by physiotherapy delivers a package of health care designed to reduce pain and improve function. Health-care interventions should be safe, effective, acceptable to patients, deliverable by clinicians, and affordable by health-care providers. Physiotherapy is very safe and popular with patients. While there is good evidence that exercise relieves pain, improves function, and is cost-effective, evidence supporting the use of non-exercise physiotherapeutic interventions is much weaker. There is some support for the efficacy of thermotherapy, transcutaneous electrical neuromuscular stimulation, and massage, all of which are relatively inexpensive and easy to self-administer. There is little evidence to support the efficacy of electrotherapy, acupuncture or manual therapy, which need to be delivered by a therapist, making them expensive and encouraging long-term reliance on others. Despite lack of efficacy, the popularity and powerful placebo effects of physiotherapeutic modalities may have some utility in making more burdensome physiotherapeutic interventions (exercise and self-management advice) more acceptable.

The contribution of physiotherapy to the management of osteoarthritis.

People with osteoarthritis are frequently referred for physiotherapy to improve pain and function. All health-care interventions must be safe, effective, acceptable, deliverable and affordable. This article summarizes some of the evidence evaluating whether physiotherapy achieves these aims.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three types of physiotherapy used to reduce chronic low back pain disability: a pragmatic randomized trial with economic evaluation.

STUDY DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomized, assessor blinded, clinical trial with economic analysis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three kinds of physiotherapy commonly used to reduce disability in chronic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Physiotherapy reduces disability in chronic back pain, but there are several forms of physiotherapy and it is unclear which is most effective or cost effective. METHODS: A total of 212 patients referred to physiotherapy with chronic low back pain were randomized to receive usual outpatient physiotherapy, spinal stabilization classes, or physiotherapist-led pain management classes. Primary outcome was Roland Disability Questionnaire score 18 months from baseline; secondary measures were pain, health-related quality of life, and time off work. Healthcare costs associated with low back pain and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were also measured. RESULTS.: A total of 71 participants were assigned to usual outpatient physiotherapy, 72 to spinal stabilization, and 69 to physiotherapist-led pain management. A total of 160 (75%) provided follow-up data at 18 months, showing similar improvements with all interventions: mean (95% confidence intervals) Roland Disability Questionnaire score improved from 11.1 (9.6-12.6) to 6.9 (5.3-8.4) with usual outpatient physiotherapy, 12.8 (11.4-14.2) to 6.8 (4.9-8.6) with spinal stabilization, and 11.5 (9.8-13.1) to 6.5 (4.5-8.6) following pain management classes. Pain, quality of life, and time off work also improved within all groups with no between-group differences. Mean (SD) healthcare costs and QALY gain were pound474 (840) and 0.99 (0.27) for individual physiotherapy, pound379 (1040) and 0.90 (0.37) for spinal stabilization, and pound165 (202) and 1.00 (0.28) for pain management. CONCLUSIONS: For chronic low back pain, all three physiotherapy regimens improved disability and other relevant health outcomes, regardless of their content. Physiotherapist-led pain management classes offer a cost-effective alternative to usual outpatient physiotherapy and are associated with less healthcare use. A more widespread adoption of physiotherapist-led pain management could result in considerable cost savings for healthcare providers.