Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesThe aim of this clustered, randomised controlled trial was to assess the effectiveness of a lumbopelvic postural feedback device for changing postural behaviour in a group of healthcare workers. We hypothesised that workers exposed to auditory postural feedback would reduce the number of times forward bending posture is adopted at work.MethodsThis was a participant and assessor blinded, randomised, sham-controlled trial with blocked cluster random allocation. We recruited healthcare workers from aged care institutions. Healthcare sites were randomly allocated to the feedback or sham group (SG). A postural monitoring and feedback device was used to monitor and record lumbopelvic forward bending posture, and provided audio feedback whenever the user sustained lumbopelvic forward bending posture that exceeded predefined thresholds. The primary outcome measure was postural behaviour (exceeding thresholds). We used a robust variant of repeated measures mixed-effect model for assessing within-group and between-group differences in postural behaviour.ResultsWe recruited 19 sites, and 130 healthcare workers participated. There were no within-group changes on the number of times postural threshold was exceeded at 1-week follow-up (feedback group: −0.7, 95% CI −2.61 to 0.72; SG −0.3, −1.65 to 0.98), and no differences (0.05, 95% CI −1.83 to 1.94) between SG and feedback group.ConclusionsFindings from this trial indicate that audio feedback provided by a postural monitor device did not reduce the number of times healthcare workers exceeded the postural threshold.Trial registration numberACTRN12616000449437.

Aim: To explore whether pain beliefs, self-efficacy, fear, avoidance, catastrophic thinking, and functional strength mediate the treatment effect of manual therapy (MT) and exercise therapy (ET) on the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) composite scores and Its subscales In Individuals with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis in the MOA trial. Methods: Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial that compared the Incremental effects of supervised MT and ET In addition to usual care In patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Results: Improvements in pain belief mediated the effect of MT (b: -10.7, 95% Cl: -21.1, -2.6), ET (b: -8.8, 95% Cl: -17.4, -1.9) and MT+ET (b: -8.3, 95% Cl: -16.3, -1.7); Improvements In catastrophic thinking mediated the effect of MT+ET (b: -6.5, 95% Cl: -13.8, -0.8); and Improvements In functional strength mediated the effect of ET, although this was a weak causal effect (b: -4.6, 95% Cl: -11.3, -0.2) and MT+ET (b: -5.3, 95% Cl: -13.0, -0.4) on WOMAC composite score.

Effective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world's most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control). This pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and economic outcomes. It was also not possible for research nurses (responsible for patient recruitment) to be masked on group allocation for practices. Findings from this study suggest that the FREE approach improves GP concordance with LBP guideline recommendations but does not improve patient recovery outcomes compared with usual care. The FREE approach may reduce unnecessary healthcare use and produce economic benefits. Work participation or health resource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated LBP. ACTRN12616000888460.

ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to: (1) develop pain education materials in Nepali and (2) determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised clinical trial (RCT) of a pain education intervention using these materials in Nepal.DesignA two-arm, parallel, assessor-blinded, feasibility RCT.SettingA rehabilitation hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal.ParticipantsForty Nepalese with non-specific low back pain (mean [SD] age 41 [14] years; 12 [30%] women).InterventionsEligible participants were randomised, by concealed, 1:1 allocation, to one of two groups: (1) a pain education intervention and (2) a guideline-based physiotherapy active control group intervention. Each intervention was delivered by a physiotherapist in a single, 1-hour, individualised treatment session.Primary outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were related to feasibility: recruitment, retention and treatment adherence of participants, feasibility and blinding of outcome assessments, fidelity of treatment delivery, credibility of, and satisfaction with, treatment. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 1 week post-treatment.Secondary outcome measuresPain intensity, pain interference, pain catastrophising, sleep disturbance, resilience, global rating of change, depression and quality of life. Statistical analyses were conducted blind to group allocation.ResultsForty participants were recruited. Thirty-eight participants (95%) completed the 1-week post-treatment assessment. Most primary outcomes surpassed the a priori thresholds for feasibility. Several findings have important implications for designing a full trial. Secondary analyses suggest clinical benefit of pain education over the control intervention, with larger decrease in pain intensity (mean difference=3.56 [95% CI 0.21 to 6.91]) and pain catastrophising (mean difference=6.16 [95% CI 0.59 to 11.72]) in the pain education group. Pain intensity would seem an appropriate outcome for a full clinical trial. One minor adverse event was reported.ConclusionWe conclude that a full RCT of pain education for back pain in Nepal is feasible and warranted.Trial registration numberNCT03387228; Results.

•Noninferiority of relative motion extension (RME) plus to dynamic orthoses.•RME plus is an option to dynamic orthoses after zones V-VI tendon repair.•RME plus noninferior for range-of-motion and satisfaction at week-6 and -12.•The greatest costs were loss of wages and productivity due to time off work. There is no comparative evidence for relative motion extension (RME) orthosis with dynamic wrist-hand-finger-orthosis (WHFO) management of zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs. To determine if RME with wrist-hand-orthosis (RME plus) is noninferior to dynamic WHFO for these zones in clinical outcomes. Randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Skilled hand therapists managed 37 participants (95% male; mean age 39 years, SD 18) with repaired zones V-VI extensor tendons randomized to RME plus (n = 19) or dynamic WHFO (n = 18). The primary outcome of percentage of total active motion (%TAM) and secondary outcomes of satisfaction, function, and quality of life were measured at week-6 and -12 postoperatively; percentage grip strength (%Grip), complication rates, and cost data at week-12. Following the intention-to-treat principle non-inferiority was assessed using linear regression analysis (5% significance) and adjusted for injury complexity factors with an analysis of costs performed. RME plus was noninferior for %TAM at week-6 (adjusted estimates 2.5; 95% CI -9.0 to 14.0), %TAM at week-12 (0.3; -6.8 to 7.5), therapy satisfaction at week-6 and -12, and orthosis satisfaction, QuickDASH, and %Grip at week-12. Per protocol analysis yielded 2 tendon ruptures in the RME plus orthoses and 1 in the dynamic WHFO. There were no differences in health system and societal cost, or quality-adjusted life years. RME plus orthosis wearers had greater injury complexity than those in dynamic WHFOs, with overall rupture rate for both groups comparatively more than reported by others; however, percentage %TAM was comparable. The number of participants needed was underestimated, so risk of chance findings should be considered. RME plus management of finger zones V-VI extensor tendon repairs is non-inferior to dynamic WHFO in %TAM, therapy and orthotic satisfaction, QuickDASH, and %Grip. Major costs associated with this injury are related to lost work time.

Background Lateral hip pain is common, particularly in females aged 40–60 years. The pain can affect sleep and daily activities, and is frequently recalcitrant. The condition is often diagnosed as trochanteric bursitis, however radiological and surgical studies have revealed that the most common pathology is gluteus medius/minimus tendinopathy. Patients are usually offered three treatment options: (a) corticosteroid injection (CSI), (b) physiotherapy, or (c) reassurance and observation. Research on Achilles and patellar tendons has shown that load modification and exercise appears to be more effective than other treatments for managing tendinopathy, however, it is unclear whether a CSI, or a load modification and exercise-based physiotherapy approach is more effective in gluteal tendinopathy. This randomised controlled trial aims to compare the efficacy on pain and function of a load modification and exercise-based programme with a CSI and a ‘wait and see’ approach for gluteal tendinopathy. Methods Two hundred one people with gluteal tendinopathy will be randomly allocated into one of three groups: (i) CSI; (ii) physiotherapist-administered load modification and exercise intervention; and (iii) wait and see approach. The CSI therapy will consist of one ultrasound (US) guided CSI around the affected tendons and advice on tendon care. Education about load modification will be delivered in physiotherapy clinics and the exercise programme will be both home-based and supervised. The group allocated the wait and see approach will receive basic tendon care advice and reassurance in a single session by a trial physiotherapist. Outcomes will be evaluated at baseline, 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52 weeks using validated global rating of change, pain and physical function scales, psychological measures, quality of life and physical activity levels. Hip abductor muscle strength will be measured at baseline and 8 weeks. Economic evaluation will be performed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the active interventions compared with the wait and see approach. Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using logistic and linear mixed regression models and the economic evaluation will report incremental cost-utility ratios. The trial reporting will comply with CONSORT guidelines. Discussion This study will provide clinicians with directly applicable evidence of the relative efficacy of three common approaches to the management of gluteal tendinopathy. Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001126808 . Date Registered: 22/10/2012.

Persistent hip pain in older people is usually due to hip osteoarthritis (OA), a major cause of pain, disability, and psychological dysfunction. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether adding an Internet-based pain coping skills training (PCST) protocol to a standardized intervention of education followed by physical therapist-instructed home exercise leads to greater reductions in pain and improvements in function. An assessor-, therapist-, and participant-blinded randomized controlled trial will be conducted. The study will be conducted in a community setting. The participants will be 142 people over 50 years of age with self-reported hip pain consistent with hip OA. Participants will be randomly allocated to: (1) a control group receiving a 24-week standardized intervention comprising an 8-week Internet-based education package followed by 5 individual physical therapy exercise sessions plus home exercises (3 times weekly) or (2) a PCST group receiving an 8-week Internet-based PCST protocol in addition to the control intervention. Outcomes will be measured at baseline and 8, 24, and 52 weeks, with the primary time point at 24 weeks. Primary outcomes are hip pain on walking and self-reported physical function. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality-of-life, participant-perceived treatment response, self-efficacy for pain management and function, pain coping attempts, pain catastrophizing, and physical activity. Measurements of adherence, adverse events, use of health services, and process measures will be collected at 24 and 52 weeks. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed at 52 weeks. A self-reported diagnosis of persistent hip pain will be used. The findings will help determine whether adding an Internet-based PCST protocol to standardized education and physical therapist-instructed home exercise is more effective than education and exercise alone for persistent hip pain. This study has the potential to guide clinical practice toward innovative modes of psychosocial health care provision.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess whether it was feasible to conduct a full trial comparing a tailored versus a standardised exercise programme for patients with shoulder subacromial pain.DesignTwo-arm, patient-blinded and assessor-blinded, randomised controlled feasibility trial.MethodsTwenty-eight participants with shoulder subacromial pain were randomly allocated into one of two intervention groups—tailored or standardised exercise. Participants in the tailored exercise programme received exercises and manual therapy tailored to their scapular and shoulder movement impairments. Participants in the standardised exercise programme received progressive strengthening exercise. The primary outcome measures were (1) the participant recruitment rate; (2) the proportion of participants enrolled from the total number screened; (3) drop-out rates; and (4) adherence to the rehabilitation programme. Other outcome measures were: (5) pain levels; (6) Patient-Specific Functional Scale; (7) the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index; and (8) pain self-efficacy. We compared changes in pain and disability scores between groups using a repeated mixed-model analysis of variance. Since this is a feasibility study, we did not adjust alpha for multiple comparisons, and considered 75% CI as the probability threshold at 3-month follow-up. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the Short-Form 12 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated.ResultsThe recruitment rate was 3 participants per month, the proportion of participants enrolled was 23%, the drop-out rate was 14% and the overall adherence to the rehabilitation programme was 85%. No between-group differences were found for most outcome measures. Adverse events (n=2, only in the tailored group) were minor in nature and included skin injury or pain following taping.ConclusionsOur feasibility trial showed that additional strategies are required for improving recruitment, enrolment and minimising drop-out of participants into the trial and making it feasible to conduct a full trial.Trial registration numberANZCTR: 12617001405303.