Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recent evidence supports the use of immersive virtual reality (immersive VR) as a means of applying visual feedback techniques in neurorehabilitation. In this study, we investigated the benefits of an embodiment-based immersive VR training program for orthopedic upper limb rehabilitation, with the aim of improving the motor functional ability of the arm and accelerating the rehabilitation process in patients with a conservatively managed distal radius fracture. We designed a rehabilitation program based on developing ownership over a virtual arm and then exercising it in immersive VR. We carried out a between 3-group controlled trial with 54 patients (mean age = 61.80 ± 14.18): 20 patients were assigned to the experimental training group (immersive VR), 20 to the conventional digit mobilization (CDM) training control group, and 14 to a non-immersive (non-immersive VR) training control group. We found that functional recovery of the arm in the immersive VR group was correlated with the ownership and agency scores over the virtual arm. We also found larger range of joint movements and lower disability of the fractured arm compared with patients in the Non-immersive VR and CDM groups. Feeling embodied in a virtual body can be used as a rehabilitation tool to speed up and improve motor functional recovery of a fractured arm after the immobilization period.

Objectives This study aimed to investigate whether inpatient multimodal occupational rehabilitation (I-MORE) reduces sickness absence (SA) more than outpatient acceptance and commitment therapy (O-ACT) among individuals with musculoskeletal and mental health disorders. Methods Individuals on sick leave (2-12 months) due to musculoskeletal or common mental health disorders were randomized to I-MORE (N=86) or O-ACT (N=80). I-MORE lasted 3.5 weeks in which participants stayed at the rehabilitation center. I-MORE included ACT, physical exercise, work-related problem solving and creating a return to work plan. O-ACT consisted mainly of 6 weekly 2.5 hour group-ACT sessions. We assessed the primary outcome cumulative SA within 6 and 12 months with national registry-data. Secondary outcomes were time to sustainable return to work and self-reported health outcomes assessed by questionnaires. Results SA did not differ between the interventions at 6 months, but after one year individuals in I-MORE had 32 fewer SA days compared to O-ACT (median 85 [interquartile range 33-149] versus 117 [interquartile range 59-189)], P=0.034). The hazard ratio for sustainable return to work was 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.2-3.0) in favor of I-MORE. There were no clinically meaningful between-group differences in self-reported health outcomes. Conclusions Among individuals on long-term SA due to musculoskeletal and common mental health disorders, a 3.5-week I-MORE program reduced SA compared with 6 weekly sessions of O-ACT in the year after inclusion. Studies with longer follow-up and economic evaluations should be performed.

ObjectivesTo examine the effects of 12 weeks aquatic high-intensity interval training (AHIIT) compared with aquatic moderate-intensity continuous training (AMICT) on aerobic capacity and lower limb functional strength in adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).DesignAn assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial.SettingCommunity-based setting.Participants89 participants (91% female, mean age 62 (SD 13) years) with RMDs were randomly allocated to AHIIT (n=44) or AMICT (n=45).InterventionsBoth groups participated in group-based peer-led exercise programmes two times per week for 12 weeks. The AHIIT group included four intervals of 4 min at high intensity (Borg scale 14–18). The AMICT group maintained moderate continuous intensity level (Borg scale 12–13).Main outcome measuresPeak aerobic capacity (VO2peak) was estimated by time to exhaustion and lower limb functional strength with the 30-second sit-to-stand test (30sSTS) at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. A linear mixed model for repeated measures estimated the mean difference with 95% CI in VO2peak and 30sSTS.ResultsMean exercise intensity was Borg scale 15 (SD 2) and 13 (SD 2) in the AHIIT and AMICT, respectively. Mean improvement in VO2peak in AHIIT was 1.9 mL∙kg−1∙min−1 (95% CI 0.045 to 3.77) compared with AMICT after 12 weeks (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in VO2peak after 6 months or in 30sSTS at either 3 or 6 months (p>0.05). No adverse events during exercise were reported.ConclusionsAHIIT demonstrated significant improvements in aerobic capacity after 12 weeks, and the intervention was well tolerated with no adverse events reported. However, there was no maintenance of aerobic capacity at 6 months.Trial registration numberNCT05209802.

Background Musculoskeletal disorders are commonly treated in primary healthcare and may, if not treated adequately, entail a risk for long-term disability and sickness absence. A team-based rehabilitation intervention (PREVention of Sickness Absence for Musculoskeletal disorders, PREVSAM) was evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the process of implementing the PREVSAM model in primary care rehabilitation. Methods This process evaluation was conducted alongside the trial, collecting quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate how the PREVSAM model was implemented, mechanisms of impact, and contextual factors. Acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, adaptations, training and support, resources, recruitment, reach, retention, dose, fidelity, and readiness for change were investigated. Qualitative data were collected from healthcare professionals and patients. Results Eight of 22 invited rehabilitation clinics (36%) and 28 of 54 healthcare professionals (52%) were included in the PREVSAM trial and this process evaluation. Of 507 eligible patients, 261 (51%) were included. Of those, 134 were randomised to the intervention and 129 (96%) were retained. Twelve healthcare professionals and 15 patients participated in the qualitative evaluations. The model’s essential components; individual assessments and structured, team-based rehabilitation with clear division of responsibilities agreed in a joint health plan; were generally delivered according to protocol. The optional components early access to psychological treatment and workplace contact were delivered to a lesser extent. Perceived acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of the PREVSAM model were moderate to high. Several contextual barriers, in the form of missing prerequisites, affected the implementation. Qualitative data showed that the model, with its holistic view, was appreciated by both healthcare professionals and patients. Conclusions This process evaluation suggests that PREVSAM is acceptable, feasible and appropriate for patients with MSDs reporting psychological risk factors associated with increased risk for sickness absence. While essential components were implemented with fidelity for most patients, optional components were not. This variability reflects the complexity of the model, its mandatory and optional components, contextual barriers, and the person-centred approach meeting individual patient needs. As all model components were not delivered to all patients, the intervention may have been too similar to treatment as usual to detect differences on a group level. A limitation of the study is that half of the participating rehabilitation clinics withdrew prematurely.

ObjectivesThe objectives of this process evaluation were to explain the results of the REFORM (REhabilitation FOR Musculoskeletal conditions) trial and identify potential facilitators and barriers to the future rollout of a remotely delivered physiotherapy model of care.SettingOutpatient physiotherapy units in five government-funded public hospitals in Sydney, Australia.DesignThis process evaluation was run alongside the REFORM trial. The REFORM trial (n=210) set out to determine whether remotely delivered physiotherapy (with one initial face-to-face session with a physiotherapist) was as good or better than a course of face-to-face physiotherapy. The process evaluation was informed by The UK Medical Research Council Process Evaluation Guidance. It was also based on the Realist Evaluation and the dimensions of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) Framework. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected. The qualitative data included semistructured interviews. The quantitative data included audits of screening logs and participants’ self-reported satisfaction with service delivery. A thematic analysis using both inductive and deductive approaches was used for qualitative analysis. Multiple data were used to triangulate the process evaluation findings.ParticipantsQuantitative data were collected on 210 participants. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 participants, 15 physiotherapists and 5 stakeholders.ResultsSome participants valued the convenience and accessibility of remotely delivered physiotherapy. It was also deemed to have the potential of improving the efficiency in the way physiotherapy is delivered. The findings from the RE-AIM framework were mixed. For example, the Reach was limited, and the Adoption and Maintenance were inconsistent across sites.ConclusionRemotely delivered physiotherapy has the potential to be rolled out across Australian clinical settings to participants similar to the REFORM trial. However, further research involving participants with different types and severity of musculoskeletal conditions is needed to improve the generalisability of our findings. Adoption might be improved with a hybrid model of care where physiotherapists’ and patients’ preferences are met.Trial registration numberACTRN12619000065190.

Objectives Previously, we reported that an inpatient multimodal occupational rehabilitation program (I-MORE) was more effective than outpatient Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (O-ACT) in reducing sickness absence and was cost-effective over a 24-month period. Here we present 7-years of follow-up on sick leave and the cost of lost production. Methods We randomized individuals aged 18–60, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal or mental health disorders to I-MORE ( n  = 82) or O-ACT ( n  = 79). I-MORE, lasting 3.5 weeks, integrated ACT, physical training, and work-related problem-solving. In contrast, O-ACT mainly offered six weekly 2.5 h group sessions of ACT. We measured outcomes using registry data for days on medical benefits and calculated costs of lost production. Our analysis included regression analyses to examine differences in sickness absence days, logistic general estimating equations for repeated events, and generalized linear models to assess differences in costs of lost production. Results Unadjusted regression analyses showed 80 fewer days of sickness absence in the 7-year follow-up for I-MORE compared to O-ACT (95% CI − 264 to 104), with an adjusted difference of 114 fewer days (95% CI − 298 to 71). The difference in costs of production loss in favour of I-MORE was 27,048 euros per participant (95% CI − 35,009 to 89,104). Conclusions I-MORE outperformed O-ACT in reducing sickness absence and production loss costs during seven years of follow-up, but due to a limited sample size the results were unprecise. Considering the potential for substantial societal cost savings from reduced sick leave, there is a need for larger, long-term studies to evaluate return-to-work interventions.

Background Quality of care is gaining increasing attention in research, clinical practice, and health care planning. Methods for quality assessment and monitoring, such as quality indicators (QIs), are needed to ensure health services in line with norms and recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness of a newly developed QI set for rehabiliation for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Methods We used two yes/no questionnaires to measure quality from both the provider and patient perspectives, scored in a range of 0–100% (best score, 100%). We collected QI data from a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial (the BRIDGE trial) that compared traditional rehabilitation with a new BRIDGE program designed to improve quality and continuity in rehabilitation. Assessment of the responsiveness was performed as a pre–post evaluation: Providers at rehabilitation centers in Norway completed the center-reported QIs ( n  = 19 structure indicators) before (T1) and 6–8 weeks after (T2) adding the BRIDGE intervention. The patient-reported QIs comprised 14 process and outcomes indicators, measuring quality in health services from the patient perspective. Pre-intervention patient-reported data were collected from patients participating in the traditional program (T1), and post-intervention data were collected from patients participating in the BRIDGE program (T2). The patient groups were comparable. We used a construct approach, with a priori hypotheses regarding the expected direction and magnitude of PR changes between T1 and T2. For acceptable responsivess, at least 75% of the hypotheses needed to be confirmed. Results All eight participating centers and 82% of the patients (293/357) completed the QI questionnaires. Responsiveness was acceptable, with 44 of 53 hypotheses (83%) confirmed for single indicators and 3 of 4 hypotheses (75%) confirmed for the sum scores. Conclusion We found this QI set for rehabilitation to be responsive when applied in rehabilitation services for adults with various RMD conditions. We recommend this QI set as a timely method for establishing quality-of-rehabilitation benchmarks, promoting important progress toward high-quality rehabilitation, and tracking trends over time. Trial registration The study is part of the larger BRIDGE trial, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03102814).

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs) are a leading cause of pain and disability, placing a substantial burden on health care systems. Optimizing resource use through innovative interventions is essential. Evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests that not all individuals with MSKDs require ongoing follow-up with a health care provider; for many, education alone is sufficient for symptom resolution. A stepped care model, which prioritizes patient education as a first-line intervention and reserves usual care for those with persistent symptoms, may enhance health care efficiency and reduce costs. The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped care model compared to the 2 most common approaches for managing MSKDs: usual medical care and usual rehabilitation care. A secondary objective is to assess cost-effectiveness. This pragmatic, noninferiority, multiarm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial will enroll 369 adults with MSKDs, randomly assigned to one of three 12-week intervention groups: stepped care, usual medical care (physician-led), or usual rehabilitation care (physiotherapist-led). Participants in the stepped care group will first complete a 6-week education program. Those with persistent symptoms after 6 weeks will receive rehabilitation interventions, while participants whose symptoms have resolved will receive no further intervention. The primary outcome is functional limitations at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes include pain severity, health-related quality of life, pain-related fear, and pain self-efficacy, assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Linear mixed models will be used for group comparisons, and incremental cost-effectiveness analyses will evaluate cost-effectiveness. The ethics committee of the CIUSSS-CN approved the project (#2024-2982). Findings will be shared through clinical and community platforms, peer-reviewed publications, and conference presentations. The Edu-First trial is funded by a project grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant #495615). Recruitment began on January 31, 2025. As of September 2025, a total of 65 participants have been enrolled. Recruitment is expected to continue for up to 3 years, targeting approximately 10 new participants per month, and is anticipated to be completed by Winter 2028. We anticipate that the stepped care model will be noninferior to usual medical care and usual rehabilitation care in terms of treatment effectiveness. Furthermore, it is expected to be cost-effective by reducing reliance on expensive resources, such as provider consultations and medical investigations. By emphasizing education and self-management as the initial approach, the stepped care model may enhance access to care without compromising quality, while empowering patients to actively manage their condition. Findings from this study could inform systemic changes in MSKD care delivery, improving treatment accessibility and reducing the average cost per care episode. ClinicalTrial.gov NCT06832852; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06832852. DERR1-10.2196/77574.