Patients', physiotherapists' and other stakeholders' experiences and perceptions about supported home physiotherapy for people with musculoskeletal conditions: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Exercise, support and advice are the key treatment strategies of musculoskeletal problems. The aims of this study were to determine patients', physiotherapists', and other stakeholders' perspectives about supported home physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal problems and to identify the barriers and facilitators to rolling out this model of physiotherapy service delivery. METHODS: This study was conducted as part of a process evaluation run alongside a large trial designed to determine whether supported home physiotherapy is as good or better than a course of in-person physiotherapy. Forty interviews were conducted with 20 trial participants, 15 physiotherapists, and 5 other stakeholders. The interviews were semi-structured and based on interview guides. Each interview was transcribed and a three-tiered coding tree was developed. RESULTS: Six key themes were identified. Supported home physiotherapy (i) is convenient for some patients, (ii) does not always align with patients' and therapists' expectations about treatment (iii) is suitable for some but not all, (iv) can reduce personal connection and accountability, (v) has implications for physiotherapists' workloads, and (vi) has barriers and facilitators to future implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that patients are far more accepting of supported home physiotherapy than physiotherapists assume. This model of service delivery could be rolled out to improve access to physiotherapy and to provide a convenient and effective way of delivering physiotherapy to some patients with musculoskeletal conditions if our trial results indicate that supported home physiotherapy is as good or better than in-person physiotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: ACTRN12619000065190 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS PAPER.

Protocol for a process evaluation: face-to-face physiotherapy compared with a supported home exercise programme for the management of musculoskeletal conditions: the REFORM trial.

INTRODUCTION: The REFORM (REhabilitation FOR Musculoskeletal conditions) trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (n=210) designed to determine whether a supported home exercise programme is as good or better than a course of face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of some musculoskeletal conditions. The trial is currently being conducted across Sydney government hospitals in Australia. This process evaluation will run alongside the REFORM trial. It combines qualitative and quantitative data to help explain the trial results and determine the feasibility of rolling out supported home exercise programmes in settings similar to the REFORM trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two theoretical frameworks underpin our process evaluation methodology: the Realist framework (context, mechanism, outcomes) considers the causal assumptions as to why a supported home exercise programme may be as good or better than face-to-face physiotherapy in terms of the context, mechanisms and outcomes of the trial. The RE-AIM framework describes the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance of the intervention. These two frameworks will be broadly used to guide this process evaluation using a mixed-methods approach. For example, qualitative data will be derived from interviews with patients, healthcare professionals and stakeholders, and quantitative data will be collected to determine the cost and feasibility of providing supported home exercise programmes. These data will be analysed iteratively before the analysis of the trial results and will be triangulated with the results of the primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial will be conducted in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2018) and the Note for Good Clinical Practice (CPMP/ICH-135/95). Ethical approval was obtained on 17 March 2017 from the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (trial number: HREC/16HAWKE/431-RESP/16/287) with an amendment for the process evaluation approved on 4 February 2020. The results of the process evaluation will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619000065190.

Face-to-face physiotherapy compared with a supported home exercise programme for the management of musculoskeletal conditions: protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial-the REFORM trial.

INTRODUCTION: Exercise, support and advice are considered core components of management for most musculoskeletal conditions and are typically provided by physiotherapists through regular face-to-face treatments. However, exercise can be provided remotely as part of a home exercise programme, while support and advice can be provided over the telephone. There is initial evidence from trials and systematic reviews to suggest that remotely provided physiotherapy can be used to manage a variety of musculoskeletal conditions safely and effectively. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this single-blind randomised controlled non-inferiority trial is to determine whether a supported home exercise programme is as good as or better than face-to-face physiotherapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. Two hundred and ten participants will be recruited from five public hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be randomised to either the supported home exercise group or the face-to-face physiotherapy group. Participants allocated to the supported home exercise group will initially receive one face-to-face session with the trial physiotherapist and will then be managed remotely for the next 6 weeks. Participants allocated to the face-to-face physiotherapy group will receive a course of physiotherapy as typically provided in Sydney government hospitals. The primary outcome is function measured by the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks. There will be nine secondary outcomes measured at 6 and 26 weeks. Separate analyses will be conducted on each outcome, and all analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. A health economic evaluation will be conducted from a health funder plus patient perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained on the 17 March 2017 from the Northern Sydney Local Health District HREC, trial number HREC/16HAWKE/431-RESP/16/287. The results of this study will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals and be presented at national and international conferences. Recruitment commenced in March 2019, and it is anticipated that the trial will be completed by December 2021. This trial will investigate two different models of physiotherapy care for people with musculoskeletal conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CPMP/ICH-135/95. PROTOCOL VERSION: The most recent version of the protocol is V.1.2 dated November 2019.

Exposure and risks from wearing asbestos mitts.

BACKGROUND: Very high fibre inhalation exposure has been measured while people were wearing personal protective equipment manufactured from chrysotile asbestos. However, there is little data that relates specifically to wearing asbestos gloves or mitts, particularly when used in hot environments such as those found in glass manufacturing. The aim of this study was to assess the likely personal exposure to asbestos fibres when asbestos mitts were used. RESULTS: Three types of work activity were simulated in a small test room with unused mitts and artificially aged mitts. Neither pair of mitts were treated to suppress the dust emission. The measured respirable fibre exposure levels ranged from <0.06 to 0.55 fibres/ml, with no significant difference in fibre exposure between aged and unused mitts. The use of high localised ventilation to simulate convective airflows from a furnace reduced exposure levels by about a factor of five. Differences between tasks were statistically significant, with simulated "rowing" of molten glass lowest and replacement of side seals on the furnace highest. Estimated lifetime cancer risk from 20 years exposure at the upper end of the exposure range measured during the study is less than 22 per 100,000. CONCLUSION: People who wore asbestos mitts were likely to have been exposed to relatively low levels of airborne chrysotile asbestos fibres, certainly much lower than the standards that were accepted in the 1960's and 70's. The cancer risks from this type of use are likely to be very low.