Movement Foundations. The perceived impact of a digital rehabilitation tool for returning to fitness following a period of illness, including COVID-19 infection: a qualitative study.

Digital interventions can increase physical activity (PA) levels in adults. However, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the complexities faced when guiding people to start or return to PA following illness or inactivity. A digital tool, Movement Foundations, was developed to provide remote guidance on building strength and capacity across functional movement patterns, with graduated progression based on user responses and input. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perceived impacts of using the tool. Nine participants aged over 35 years from the healthcare and academic healthcare sectors were recruited to use it and were subsequently interviewed. Thematic analysis identified three themes falling under the overarching concept of 'Capability, Opportunity and Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) Plus', encompassing: skills and capacity for movement; opportunities, motivations and barriers for movement; and a personalised, safe space in which to develop. Participants felt that the digital tool increased their capacity and confidence in movement and positively impacted their daily activities. External factors such as illness and stress clouded perceptions of the impacts of PA. Time, work pressures and needing equipment were still considered significant barriers to PA. Still, participants appreciated the flexibility and non-prescriptive nature of the tool and felt that it helped movement to become opportunistic and habitual. Increased capacity for PA and feeling the subsequent physical and mental effects positively influenced motivation. Structure and guidance, with graduated progress, were seen as protective. Guided self-reflection helped participants understand their capacity and limitations with regard to movement and promoted motivation. Although acquiring technical skills to guide movement may be important for those recovering from illness, participants found that a structure promoting individualised guidance, graduated progression and guided self-reflection were important motivational factors for continuing use. Digital interventions should consider these aspects when seeking to promote habitual PA.

The influence of pain, kinesiophobia and psychological comorbidities on the accuracy of rating of perceived exertion in UK military spinal rehabilitation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a leading cause of disability in the UK Military. Pain and psychological comorbidities have been reported to influence the rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Exercise rehabilitation can be monitored using RPE; however, the accuracy of RPE in inpatient CLBP rehabilitation is unknown. METHODS: A prospective cohort correlation study of 40 UK Military inpatients with CLBP was completed. Disability (ODI), kinesiophobia (TSK), anxiety (GAD-7) and depression (PHQ-9) were subjectively reported at the beginning and end of a 3 week intervention. Pain (VAS) and HR were recorded in the first aerobic exercise (AE) session (T1) and the final aerobic exercise session (T2). RPE was reported for each AE session. RESULTS: At T1, a positive correlation was observed between RPE accuracy (-7.2±20.9), and pre-exercise pain (2.7 mm ±1.6 mm) (p>0.001) and ODI (31.0±16.9) (p>0.05), and a negative relationship between RPE accuracy and average HR (135 bpm ±22 bpm) (p>0.001) was observed. At T2, there was no significant correlation between RPE accuracy (-4.4±22.6) and pre-exercise pain (2.8 mm ±1.6 mm) or ODI (34.0±16.5) (p>0.05). The strong negative relationship between RPE accuracy and average HR (137 bpm ±20 bpm) remained at T2. Improved RPE accuracy over the 3-week rehabilitation programme was correlated to the change in average HR (r=-0.314, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities may negatively affect RPE accuracy in CLBP, but the magnitude of the influence reduces over intensive rehabilitation.

Cognitive functional therapy (CFT)-based rehabilitation improves clinical outcomes in UK military personnel with persistent low back pain.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) has been reported as the most common reason for presentation to the Medical Centre in the British Military, and the most common re-referral for the same condition. In 2015, the UK Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre (DMRC) adopted a cognitive functional therapy (CFT) approach to spinal rehabilitation in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and military best practice guidelines. The aim of this study is to evaluate the functional and psychosocial outcomes of all patients with chronic LBP treated with CFT-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation at DMRC, Headley Court. METHODS: A prospective observational service evaluation of British Military patients (n=238) with LBP who attended 3 weeks of inpatient multidisciplinary CFT-based programme from 2015 to the end of 2017 at DMRC was analysed. Functional outcomes include: multistage locomotion test (MSLT) and sit and reach test. Psychosocial outcomes include: Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Oswestry Disability Index, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), General Anxiety Disorder-7 and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. RESULTS: There were significant improvements in endurance (MSLT), range of motion, kinesiophobia, pain-related lifestyle interference (BPI-Lifestyle), anxiety and depression (p≤0.001). However, no improvements in pain intensity (BPI-Intensity) were demonstrated (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: After 3 weeks of CFT-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation, function and psychosocial health improved with symptoms of pain being less obtrusive to activities of daily activity. There were however no patient-reported reductions in pain intensity. The improvements demonstrated are indicative of outcomes that facilitate greater integration back to work or into society.

Low-Load Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction Improves Clinical Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: There is growing evidence to support the use of low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) exercise in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of low-load blood flow restricted (LL-BFR) training versus conventional high mechanical load resistance training (RT) on the clinical outcomes of patient's undergoing inpatient multidisciplinary team (MDT) rehabilitation. Study design: A single-blind randomized controlled study. Methods: Twenty-eight lower-limb injured adults completed a 3-week intensive MDT rehabilitation program. Participants were randomly allocated into a conventional RT (3-days/week) or twice-daily LL-BFR training group. Outcome measurements were taken at baseline and 3-weeks and included quadriceps and total thigh muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and volume, muscle strength [five repetition maximum (RM) leg press and knee extension test, isometric hip extension], pain and physical function measures (Y-balance test, multistage locomotion test-MSLT). Results: A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences between groups for any outcome measure post-intervention (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvements in mean scores for muscle CSA/volume, 5-RM leg press, and 5-RM knee extension (p < 0.01) after treatment. LL-BFR group participants also demonstrated significant improvements in MSLT and Y-balance scores (p < 0.01). The Pain scores during training reduced significantly over time in the LL-BFR group (p = 0.024), with no adverse events reported during the study. Conclusion: Comparable improvements in muscle strength and hypertrophy were shown in LL-BFR and conventional training groups following in-patient rehabilitation. The LL-BFR group also achieved significant improvements in functional capacity. LL-BFR training is a rehabilitation tool that has the potential to induce positive adaptations in the absence of high mechanical loads and therefore could be considered a treatment option for patients suffering significant functional deficits for whom conventional loaded RT is contraindicated. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Reference: ISRCTN63585315, dated 25 April 2017.

The effects of low-intensity blood flow restricted exercise compared with conventional resistance training on the clinical outcomes of active UK military personnel following a 3-week in-patient rehabilitation programme: protocol for a randomized controlled feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: A challenge for rehabilitation practitioners lies in designing optimal exercise programmes that facilitate musculoskeletal (MSK) adaptations whilst simultaneously accommodating biological healing and the safe loading of an injured limb. A growing body of evidence supports the use of resistance training at a reduced load in combination with blood flow restriction (BFR) to enhance hypertrophic and strength responses in skeletal muscle. In-patient rehabilitation has a long tradition in the UK Military, however, the efficacy of low intensity (LI) BFR training has not been tested in this rehabilitation setting. The aims of this study are to determine (1) the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating LI-BFR training in a residential, multidisciplinary treatment programme and (2) provide preliminary data describing the within and between-group treatment effects of a LI-BFR intervention and a conventional resistance training group in military personnel. METHODS: This is a single-blind randomised controlled feasibility study. A minimum of 28 lower-limb injured UK military personnel, aged 18 to 50 years, attending rehabilitation at the UK Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre (DMRC) will be recruited into the study. After completion of baseline measurements, participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive 3 weeks (15 days) of intensive multidisciplinary team (MDT) in-patient rehabilitation. Group 1 will receive conventional resistance training 3 days per week. Group 2 will perform twice daily LI-BFR training. Both groups will also undertake the same common elements of the existing MDT programme. Repeat follow-up assessments will be undertaken upon completion of treatment. Group 2 participants will be asked to rate their pain response to LI-BFR training every five sessions. DISCUSSION: The results will provide information on the feasibility of a full-scale RCT. Recommendations for an adequately powered study to determine the efficacy of LI-BFR training during in-patient rehabilitation can then be made. The study may also provide insights into the potential effectiveness of LI-BFR training as a novel exercise modality to induce muscle adaptations in the absence of high mechanical loading of the lower-limb. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Reference: ISRCTN 63585315 dated 25 April 2017.