Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Low back pain (LBP) is the most common reported musculoskeletal disorder, with large prevalence numbers and high costs. Focus on early identification of patients at risk of developing chronic LBP has increased. The Keele Start Back Tool (SBT) is a questionnaire aiming at screening prognostic indicators in LBP patients, categorizing patients into risk-groups and guide treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the Norwegian version of the SBT with regard to reliability of the SBT-scoring and the screening ability in LBP patients in primary care physiotherapy. Methods LBP patients answered a package of questionnaires twice, with 1-3 days in between, containing SBT, Hannover functional ability questionnaire, pain intensity questions and demographics. The relative and absolute reliability of SBT was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the smallest detectable change respectively. Independent sample t-tests were used for group comparisons. Results Fifty-two patients with LBP. Mean age (SD) was 45 (12) years and 62% were female. The ICC (95% CI) for SBT total score and psychosocial subscore was 0.89 (0.82, 0.94) and 0.82 (0.70, 0.90) respectively. None of the participants were allocated to the high risk group. The medium risk group reported significantly more pain last week and more activity limitations than the low risk group at both test and retest (0.001 ≤ p ≤ 0.003), whereas no significant difference between the groups was found on pain now (0.05 ≤ p ≤ 0.16). Conclusions The Norwegian version of the SBT was reliable and the screening ability was good as the subgrouping of patients into risk-groups reflected the severity of their back problems. The SBT may be an applicable and useful tool in physiotherapy practice.

Background Musculoskeletal conditions (MSCs) are widely prevalent in present-day society, with resultant high healthcare costs and substantial negative effects on patient health and quality of life. The main aim of this overview was to synthesize evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of exercise therapy (ET) on pain and physical function for patients with MSCs. In addition, the evidence for the effect of ET on disease pathogenesis, and whether particular components of exercise programs are associated with the size of the treatment effects, was also explored. Methods We included four common conditions: fibromyalgia (FM), low back pain (LBP), neck pain (NP), and shoulder pain (SP), and four specific musculoskeletal diseases: osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and osteoporosis (OP). We first included Cochrane reviews with the most recent update being January 2007 or later, and then searched for non-Cochrane reviews published after this date. Pain and physical functioning were selected as primary outcomes. Results We identified 9 reviews, comprising a total of 224 trials and 24,059 patients. In addition, one review addressing the effect of exercise on pathogenesis was included. Overall, we found solid evidence supporting ET in the management of MSCs, but there were substantial differences in the level of research evidence between the included diagnostic groups. The standardized mean differences for knee OA, LBP, FM, and SP varied between 0.30 and 0.65 and were significantly in favor of exercise for both pain and function. For NP, hip OA, RA, and AS, the effect estimates were generally smaller and not always significant. There was little or no evidence that ET can influence disease pathogenesis. The only exception was for osteoporosis, where there was evidence that ET increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women, but no significant effects were found for clinically relevant outcomes (fractures). For LBP and knee OA, there was evidence suggesting that the treatment effect increases with the number of exercise sessions. Conclusions There is empirical evidence that ET has beneficial clinical effects for most MSCs. Except for osteoporosis, there seems to be a gap in the understanding of the ways in which ET influences disease mechanisms.

Background To tailor physical activity treatment programs for patients with osteoarthritis, clinicians need valid and feasible measurement tools to evaluate habitual physical activity. The widely used International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF) is not previously validated in patients with osteoarthritis. Purpose To assess the concurrent criterion validity of the IPAQ-SF in patients with osteoarthritis, using an accelerometer as a criterion-method. Method Patients with osteoarthritis ( n  = 115) were recruited at The Division of Rheumatology and Research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital (Oslo, Norway). Physical activity was measured by patients wearing an accelerometer (ActiGraph wGT3X-BT) for seven consecutive days, followed by reporting their physical activity for the past 7 days using the IPAQ-SF. Comparison of proportions that fulfilled physical activity recommendations as measured by the two methods were tested by Pearson Chi-Square analysis. Differences in physical activity levels between the IPAQ-SF and the accelerometer were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test and Spearman rank correlation test. Bland-Altman plots were used to visualize the concurrent criterion validity for total- and intensity-specific physical activity levels. Results In total, 93 patients provided complete physical activity data, mean (SD) age was 65 (8.7) years, 87% were women. According to the IPAQ-SF, 57% of the patients fulfilled the minimum physical activity recommendations compared to 31% according to the accelerometer ( p  = 0.043). When comparing the IPAQ-SF to the accelerometer we found significant under-reporting of total physical activity MET-minutes (p = < 0.001), sitting (p = < 0.001) and walking ( p  < 0.001), and significant over-reporting of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (p < 0.001). For the different physical activity levels, correlations between the IPAQ-SF and the accelerometer ranged from rho 0.106 to 0.462. The Bland-Altman plots indicated an increased divergence between the two methods with increasing time spent on moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity. Conclusion Physical activity is a core treatment of osteoarthritis. Our finding that patients tend to over-report activity of higher intensity and under-report low-intensity activity and sitting-time is of clinical importance. We conclude that the concurrent criterion validity of the IPAQ-SF was weak in patients with osteoarthritis.

Background Although gender differences have been observed in the severity of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), gender differences in disease presentation of early axSpA have not been thoroughly investigated. In particular, their impact on the diagnostic process is unknown. Methods Baseline data from the SPondyloArthritis Caught Early cohort, which includes patients with chronic back pain (CBP; duration ≥ 3 months and ≤ 2 years, age of onset < 45 years), were analysed. Patients underwent a full diagnostic work-up, including MRI and radiograph of the sacroiliac joints (MRI-SIJ and X-SIJ), to establish a diagnosis of axSpA. Characteristics of male and female patients with a certain diagnosis of axSpA (confidence level by the physician ≥ 7 on a 0–10 rating scale) were compared. Regression models were built for: the whole CBP cohort stratified by gender, to study which SpA features were associated most with diagnosis in each gender; and for axSpA patients, to test whether gender was associated with imaging positivity (MRI-SIJ + and/or X-SIJ + ). Results Of the 719 CBP patients, 275 were male. With 146/275 males and 155/444 females diagnosed as axSpA, males were more likely to be diagnosed with axSpA (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5–2.9). Despite similar symptom duration, male axSpA patients were younger at diagnosis (27.4 ± 7.5 vs 29.5 ± 7.8 years; p  = 0.02). Presence of SpA features was similar in male and female axSpA patients, except for HLA-B27 and imaging positivity that were more common in male axSpA patients (80% vs 60%; p  < 0.01 and 78% vs 64%; p  = 0.01). Nevertheless, these SpA features were still more prevalent in female axSpA patients than in no-axSpA patients, both females (HLA-B27 + 23%, positive imaging 7%) and males (HLAB27 + 34%, positive imaging 11%) (all p  < 0.01). Moreover, in multivariable models with diagnosis of axSpA as outcome, HLA-B27 and imaging positivity were associated with the diagnosis in both sexes. In models with imaging positivity as outcome, male gender and HLA-B27 were both independently associated with MRI + and/or X-SI + . Conclusions While our data show clear gender differences in early axSpA, they highlight that HLA-B27 and imaging are still key elements for diagnosis in both genders. Our study does not suggest that separate diagnostic strategies for men and women are required.

Background Patient engagement is recommended for improving health care services, and to evaluate its organisation and impact appropriate, and rigorously evaluated outcome measures are needed. Methods Interviews ( N  = 12) were conducted to assess relevance of the Canadian Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) in a Norwegian setting were performed. The tool was translated, back translated, and assessed following cognitive interviews ( N  = 13), according to the COSMIN checklist. Data quality was assessed in a cross-sectional survey of patient advisory board members from different rehabilitation institutions ( N  = 47). Results Interviews with patient board representatives confirmed the relevance of the PPEET Organisational questionnaire in a Norwegian setting and contributed five additional items. Translation and back translation of the original PPEET showed no major content differences. Differences in vocabulary and sentence structure were solved by discussion among the translators. Comments from cognitive interviews mainly related to the use of different synonyms, layout, and minor differences in semantic structure. Results of the cross-sectional survey support the data quality and construct validity of PPEET items, including 95 score comparisons where 76 (80%) were as hypothesized. Conclusions The PPEET Organisational questionnaire has been thoroughly translated and tested, and the resulting Evalueringsverktøy for Brukermedvirkning (EBNOR) has adequate levels of comprehensibility and content validity. Further testing for measurement properties is recommended, but given these results, the EBNOR should be considered for assessing patient engagement in a Norwegian health care organisational context.

Background Data collection through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is essential for the purpose of rehabilitation research and registries. Existing problems with incomplete PROM data may relate to the patient burden and data set length. This study aimed to analyse response patterns and degree of data completeness in systematic outcome assessments conducted within a clinical study in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation setting, comparing completeness of a brief and a longer set of PROMs. Methods The Norwegian RehabNytte Cohort was developed to monitor patients’ long-term benefit of rehabilitation and progress on PROMs. Adults admitted to one of 17 institutions providing mostly inpatient rehabilitation in secondary healthcare were included between January 2019 and March 2020, and followed for one year. For the purpose of the current randomized controlled trial, the Cohort-patients in 16/17 institutions were randomized to complete either a brief or a longer set of PROMs at admission, discharge, and after 3, 6 and 12 months. The brief set comprised the EQ-5D-5L and additional generic PROMs commonly used in rehabilitation settings. The longer data set expanded upon the brief set by including the Patient-Specific Functional Scale and the 29-item version of the PROMIS Profile instruments. Completeness was measured as the extent of present applicable PROM data at each time point. In addition, we assessed response patterns in terms of dropout rates and intermittently missed assessment events. The RehabNytte study is registered under ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT03764982, first posted 05.12.2018). Results Of the 2904 patients included, 1455 were assigned to the brief data set and 1449 to the longer data set. The majority of patients were referred to rehabilitation for rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (39.3%) or cancer (26.9%). The data set completeness was significantly higher in the brief set compared to the longer ( p  < 0.001). From admission to 12 months follow-up, differences in completeness between groups ranged from 6.5 to 12.6 percentage points, consistently favouring the brief set. Completeness was highest at admission, reaching 96.8% (95% CI 0.96–0.98) for the brief set and 84.2% (95% CI 0.82–0.86) for the longer set. The lowest completeness was observed at discharge, with 46.0% (95% CI 0.43–0.49) for the brief set and 39.5% (95% CI 0.37–0.42) for the longer one. Discharge was the only time point without automatic reminders to non-responders from the digital data collection system. Patients responding to the longer data set exhibited the highest dropout rates, while degree of intermittent missing data was comparable between groups. In both groups, only one-third of patients provided complete or partly responses at all five time points. Conclusions This study demonstrated that a brief set of PROMs achieved higher data completeness compared to a longer set, when used for repeated measurements in a rehabilitation research setting.

Background Patient participation is highlighted as an important facilitator for patient-centered care. Patient participation organised as patient advisory boards (PABs) is an integral part of health care institutions in Norway. More knowledge is needed on how PAB representatives experience patient engagement (PE) with regard to organisation, influence, and impact. The objective was to describe how PAB representatives experience their tasks, roles, and impact on decision-making processes and service delivery in the setting of rehabilitation institutions. Methods PAB representatives recruited from rehabilitation institutions completed the Norwegian version of the generic Public and Patient Engagement evaluation tool (Norwegian abbreviation EBNOR). EBNOR is tested for reliability and validity with good results and comprises 35 items within four main domains, policies and practices, participatory culture, collaboration, and influence and impact that provide responses about PE-levels. The domain items are scored from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” on a five-point scale, in addition to a don’t know category. Items in the domain “influence and impact” are scored from “never” to “all of the time” on a four-point scale. Categorical data were summarized using frequencies and percentages, and response categories were collapsed into three PE-levels: barrier, intermediate, and facilitating level. Free-text responses were analysed according to principles of manifest content analysis, summed up, and used to elaborate the results of the scores. Results Of the 150 contacted PAB representatives, 47 (32%) consented to participate. The results showed that approximately 75% agreed that the organisation as a whole was strengthened as a result of patient participation. Four out of five domains were scored indicating a facilitating level; policies and practices (53%), participatory culture (53%), collaboration and common purpose (37%), and final thoughts (63%). The modal score in the domain influence and impact was in the intermediate PE-level (44%). Of a total of 34 codes from free text analyses, barriers to PE were coded 26 times, and PE facilitators were coded 8 times. Conclusions The findings indicate that most PAB representatives are satisfied with how rehabilitation institutions organise their PAB, but they still experience their impact as limited.

BackgroundPatient engagement (PE) is required to improve future healthcare services. PE in the development and delivery of healthcare services is likely to be complex but is scarcely described.ObjectivesThe objective of this scoping review was to summarise primary studies on mesolevel PE regarding structure, process and outcomes. More specifically, the aim was to explore barriers and facilitators to successful PE, how persons are engaged in the process and summarise reported consequences.MethodA systematic scoping review was conducted, searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane and PsycINFO databases. Primary studies, published between 7 July 2005 and 4 October 2022, were considered for inclusion. Two reviewers extracted data about PE (eg, attributes of PE settings, facilitators and barriers, and outcomes to PE) and the first author coded the extracted data into structural, processual and outcome themes.ResultsOf 8588 identified records, 37 studies were eligible. Most of the included studies were conducted in Europe (n=19; 51%) and North America (n=13; 35%). Structures that ensure sufficient stakeholder representativeness and PE knowledge through education may facilitate the PE process further, regardless of the environmental setting. Interpersonal relationships with uneven power dynamics were reported as noteworthy processual barriers to meaningful PE, while clearly described roles and tasks were reported as important facilitators. In contrast to hard outcomes with operationalised PE effects, the most noteworthy outcomes of PE were reported as soft processual consequences such as patient representatives improving their self-esteem and feeling valued.ConclusionsUnfortunately, there is a dearth of studies exploring hard and operationalised PE outcomes on healthcare services and patients receiving healthcare. The PE process may be facilitated by dedicated finances to PE education and by ensuring sufficient stakeholder representativeness.

Physical therapy is recommended for the management of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and flexibility exercises have traditionally been the main focus. Cardiovascular (CV) diseases are considered as a major health concern in axSpA and there is strong evidence that endurance and strength exercise protects against CV diseases. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of high intensity endurance and strength exercise on disease activity and CV health in patients with active axSpA. In a single blinded randomized controlled pilot study the exercise group (EG) performed 12 weeks of endurance and strength exercise while the control group (CG) received treatment as usual. The primary outcome was the Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) Disease Activity Score (ASDAS). Secondary outcomes included patient reported disease activity (Bath AS Disease Activity Index [BASDAI]), physical function (Bath AS Functional Index [BASFI]), and CV risk factors measured by arterial stiffness (Augmentation Index [Alx]) and Pulse Wave Velocity [PWV]), cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 peak) and body composition. ANCOVA on the post intervention values with baseline values as covariates was used to assess group differences, and Mann Whitney U-test was used for outcomes with skewed residuals. Twenty-eight patients were included and 24 (EG, n = 10, CG, n = 14) completed the study. A mean treatment effect of -0.7 (95%CI: -1.4, 0.1) was seen in ASDAS score. Treatment effects were also observed in secondary outcomes (mean group difference [95%CI]): BASDAI: -2.0 (-3.6, -0.4), BASFI: -1.4 (-2.6, -0.3), arterial stiffness (estimated median group differences [95% CI]): AIx (%): -5.3 (-11.0, -0.5), and for PVW (m/s): -0.3 (-0.7, 0.0), VO2 peak (ml/kg/min) (mean group difference [95%CI]: 3.7 (2.1, 5.2) and trunk fat (%): -1.8 (-3.0, -0.6). No adverse events occurred. High intensity exercise improved disease activity and reduced CV risk factors in patients with active axSpA. These effects will be further explored in a larger trial. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01436942.

Background To address the well-documented gap between hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment recommendations and current clinical practice, a structured model for integrated OA care was developed and evaluated in a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. The current study used secondary outcomes to evaluate clinically important response to treatment through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials clinical responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria) after 3 and 6 months between patients receiving the structured OA care model vs. usual care. Secondly, the study aimed to investigate if the proportion of responders in the intervention group was influenced by adherence to the exercise program inherent in the model. Methods The study was conducted in primary healthcare in six Norwegian municipalities. General practitioners and physiotherapists received training in OA treatment recommendations and use of the structured model. The intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education program and performed individually tailored exercises for 8–12 weeks. The control group received usual care. Patient-reported pain, function and global assessment of disease activity during the last week were evaluated using 11-point numeric rating scales (NRS 0–10). These scores were used to calculate the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Two-level mixed logistic regression models were fitted to investigate differences in responders between the intervention and control group. Results Two hundred eighty-four intervention and 109 control group participants with hip and knee OA recruited from primary care in six Norwegian municipalities. In total 47% of the intervention and 35% of the control group participants were responders at 3 or 6 months combined; showing an uncertain between-group difference (OR adjusted 1.38 (95% CI 0.41, 4.67). In the intervention group, 184 participants completed the exercise programme (exercised ≥2 times/week for ≥8 weeks) and 55% of these were classified as responders. In contrast, 28% of the 86 non-completers were classified as responders. Conclusions The difference in proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders at 3 and 6 months between the intervention and control group was uncertain. In the intervention group, a larger proportion of responders were seen among the exercise completers compared to the non-completers. Clinical trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02333656 . Registered 7. January 2015.