Explore the vast range of titles available.

Many researchers and clinicians believe the effectiveness of existing physical therapy interventions can be improved by targeting the provision of specific interventions at patients who respond best to that treatment. Although this approach has the potential to improve outcomes for some patients, it needs to be implemented carefully because some methods used to identify subgroups can produce biased or misleading results. The aim of this article is to assist readers in assessing the validity and generalizability of studies designed to identify subgroups of responders to physical therapy interventions. The key messages are that subgroups should be identified using high-quality randomized controlled trials, the investigation should be limited to a relatively small number of potential subgroups for which there is a plausible rationale, subgroup effects should be investigated by formally analyzing statistical interactions, and findings of subgroups should be subject to external validation.

Background Disinvestment from inefficient or ineffective health services is a growing priority for health care systems. Provision of allied health services over the weekend is now commonplace despite a relative paucity of evidence supporting their provision. The relatively high cost of providing this service combined with the paucity of evidence supporting its provision makes this a potential candidate for disinvestment so that resources consumed can be used in other areas. This study aims to determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of the current model of weekend allied health service and a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery on acute medical and surgical wards compared to having no weekend allied health service. Methods/Design Two stepped wedge, cluster randomised trials of weekend allied health services will be conducted in six acute medical/surgical wards across two public metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne (Australia). Wards have been chosen to participate by management teams at each hospital. The allied health services to be investigated will include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work and allied health assistants. At baseline, all wards will be receiving weekend allied health services. Study 1 intervention will be the sequential disinvestment (roll-in) of the current weekend allied health service model from each participating ward in monthly intervals and study 2 will be the roll-out of a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery. The order in which weekend allied health services will be rolled in and out amongst participating wards will be determined randomly. This trial will be conducted in each of the two participating hospitals at a different time interval. Primary outcomes will be length of stay, rate of unplanned hospital readmission within 28 days and rate of adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be number of complaints and compliments, staff absenteeism, and patient discharge destination, satisfaction, and functional independence at discharge. Discussion This is the world’s first application of the recently described non-inferiority (roll-in) stepped wedge trial design, and the largest investigation of the effectiveness of weekend allied health services on acute medical surgical wards to date. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. Registration number: ACTRN12613001231730 (first study) and ACTRN12613001361796 (second study). Was this trial prospectively registered?: Yes. Date registered: 8 November 2013 (first study), 12 December 2013 (second study). Anticipated completion: June 2015. Protocol version: 1. Role of trial sponsor: KP and DL are directly employed by one of the trial sponsors, their roles were: KP assisted with overall development of research design and assisted with overall project management; DL contributed to project management, administration and communications strategy.

Objective: To explore whether an occupational therapy intervention combined with physiotherapy rehabilitation improved hip fracture patient outcomes regarding emotional distress, fatigue, independence and function. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Inpatient trauma ward in a rehabilitation and trauma hospital. Participants: One hundred and twenty-two patients admitted into hospital for hip fracture. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to a standard care group (SC, n = 61) or a combined treatment group (CT, n = 61). The SC group received conventional hospital care for hip fracture patients and the CT group underwent occupational therapy as well. Main measures: Patients’ emotional distress (GHQ-28), perceived fatigue (the first item of the BASDAI using a 0–100 visual analogue scale scale), level of independence (Modified Barthel Index) and function (Harris Hip Score) were measured at baseline and one, three and six months after the intervention. Results: Patients in the CT group experienced a considerable decrease of emotional distress at three and six months (p = 0.005 and p < 0.001, respectively). A between-group analysis showed significant differences in emotional distress at one, three and six months (p < 0.001). Although fatigue levels decreased in the SC group, the most significant decline was reported by the CT group at six months (p < 0.001, mean difference = 14 points). Regarding independence level, significant differences were found within groups at each stage, but also between groups at one month in favor of the CT group. Function improved in both groups compared with baseline (p < 0.001), but no significant differences were found in functionality between groups. Conclusion: Although both groups reported significant improvements, patients in the CT group had better scores in emotional distress and dependence throughout follow-up and better scores in all measures at six months.

Objective: To investigate the effects of a physiotherapy protocol on patients with pleural effusion. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: University hospital. Participants: A total of 104 consecutive inpatients with a medical diagnosis of pleural effusion. Intervention: Patients were randomly allocated to a control group receiving standard treatment (medical treatment and drainage) or an intervention group treated with physiotherapy added to standard treatment. The physiotherapy programme included deep breathing exercises, mobilizations and incentive spirometry. Main outcome measures: Spirometric predicted values and chest radiographs were measured before treatment and at discharge and the length of hospital stay was recorded. Assessors were blinded to the intervention. Results: A comparative analysis showed a significant improvement of spirometric parameters in the intervention group; pre-to-post hospitalization predicted values showed significant changes in vital capacity (73.1 ± 12.6% to 72.13 ± 13.7 %, P<0.001 ), forced expiratory volume in first second (72.13 ± 13.7% to 78.98 ± 16.9%, P<0.001) and forced expiratory flow at 25-75 % (64.8 ± 35.1% to 76.78 ± 35.3%, P=0.198) compared to the control group that showed no significant changes across treatment. The radiographic findings showed better scores on the affected side of the thorax at discharge in the physiotherapy group. Length of hospital stay was also significantly (P=0.014) shorter in the intervention group (26.7 ± 8.8 days) compared to the control group (38.6 ± 10.7 days). Conclusions: A physiotherapy programme added to standard treatment improves the spirometric parameters and the radiological findings and reduces the hospital stay in patients with a pleural effusion.

IntroductionAnnually, >50% of the US population reports musculoskeletal (MSK) pain to a provider, with direct healthcare costs exceeding $185 billion. The number of MSK complaints and the associated costs are projected to rise, increasing demand for and burden on providers. Establishing new care models to decrease inefficiencies may lower costs and optimise care delivery. The purpose of the Integration of Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy Care in the Patient-Centred Medical Home (IMPaC) study is to compare initial evaluation by a physical therapist (PT) integrated into primary care versus initial evaluation by a primary care provider (PCP) for patients with an MSK complaint.Methods and analysisThis single-site, randomised clinical trial will test the hypothesis that a PT within a primary care facility as the initial evaluating provider for patients with an MSK complaint will lower costs, improve utilisation (ie, reduced opioid prescriptions, imaging, physical therapy, emergency department visits and missed appointments) and increase patient satisfaction within 90 days of the index visit compared with PCP evaluation in the same location. Participants aged ≥18 years will be randomised with equal allocation and stratified by pain site (ie, back, knee, upper extremity and other). In the initial PT evaluation arm, patients will be assessed, treated and then instructed to complete a home exercise programme. The PCP cohort will undergo a usual PCP evaluation, and if a referral to physical therapy is made, patients will be randomised to onsite versus offsite physical therapy. Differences will be calculated and tested across the two arms.Ethics and disseminationApproval was received from the Duke University Institutional Review Board (01 May 2017) and the National Institutes of Health, National Centre for Advancing Translational Sciences (01 January 2017). Findings will be communicated via quarterly reports to funding bodies and disseminated through scientific publications.Trial registration number NCT03110211; Pre-results.

Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness, effect on waiting times, and patient acceptability of PhysioDirect services in patients with musculoskeletal problems, compared with usual care.Design Pragmatic randomised controlled trial to assess equivalence in clinical effectiveness. Patients were individually randomised in a 2:1 ratio to PhysioDirect or usual care.Setting Four physiotherapy services in England.Participants Adults (aged ≥18 years) referred by general practitioners or self referred for musculoskeletal physiotherapy.Interventions PhysioDirect services invited patients to telephone a physiotherapist for initial assessment and advice, followed by face-to-face physiotherapy if necessary. Usual care involved patients joining a waiting list for face-to-face treatment.Main outcome measures Numbers of appointments, waiting time for treatment, and non-attendance rates. Primary outcome was physical health (SF-36v2 physical component score) at six months. Secondary outcomes included four other measures of health outcome, mental component score and scales from the SF-36v2, time lost from work, and patient satisfaction and preference. Participants were not blind to allocation, but outcome data were collected blind to allocation.Results Of 1506 patients allocated to PhysioDirect and 743 to usual care, 85% provided primary outcome data at six months (1283 and 629 patients, respectively). PhysioDirect patients had fewer face-to-face appointments than usual care patients (mean 1.91 v 3.11; incidence rate ratio 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.65)), a shorter waiting time (median 7 days v 34 days; arm time ratio 0.32 (0.29 to 0.35)), and lower rates of non-attendance (incidence rate ratio 0.55 (0.41 to 0.73)). After six months’ follow-up, the SF-36v2 physical component score was equivalent between groups (adjusted difference in means −0.01 (−0.80 to 0.79)). Health outcome measures suggested a trend towards slightly greater improvement in the PhysioDirect arm at six week follow-up and no difference at six months. There was no difference in time lost from work. PhysioDirect patients were no more satisfied with access to physiotherapy than usual care patients, but had slightly lower satisfaction overall at six months (difference in satisfaction −3.8% (−7.3% to −0.3%); P=0.031). PhysioDirect patients were more likely than usual care patients to prefer PhysioDirect in future. No adverse events were detected.Conclusions PhysioDirect is equally clinically effective compared with usual care, provides faster access to physiotherapy, and seems to be safe. However, it could be associated with slightly lower patient satisfaction.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55666618.

BackgroundOne of the reasons physiotherapy services are provided to emergency departments (EDs) and emergency extended care units (EECUs) is to review patients' mobility to ensure they are safe to be discharged home.AimTo investigate whether a physiotherapy service to an EECU altered the rate of hospital admission, rate of re-presentation to the ED, visits to community healthcare practitioners, return to usual work/home/leisure activities and patient satisfaction.MethodsA randomised trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analysis was undertaken in an EECU. The sample comprised 186 patients (mean age 70 years, 123 (66%) female patients, 130 (70%) trauma) who were referred for physiotherapy assessment/intervention. Referral occurred at any stage of the patients' EECU admission. All participants received medical/nursing care as required. The physiotherapy group also received physiotherapy assessment/intervention.ResultsThe physiotherapy group had a 4% (95% CI −18% to 9%) lower rate of admission to hospital than the control group and a 4% (95% CI −6% to 13%) higher rate of re-presentation to the ED, which were statistically non-significant (p≥0.45). Differences between groups for use of community healthcare resources, return to usual work/home/leisure activities and satisfaction with their EECU care were small and not significant.ConclusionA physiotherapy service for EECU patients, as provided in this study, did not reduce the rate of hospital admission, rate of re-presentation to the ED, use of community healthcare resources, or improve the rate of return to usual work/home/leisure activities or patient satisfaction.Trial registration numberANZCTRN12609000106235.

Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations for effective and safe diagnostic assessment and intervention strategies for the physiotherapy treatment of patients in intensive care units. Methods: We used the EBRO method, as recommended by the ‘Dutch Evidence Based Guideline Development Platform’ to develop an ‘evidence statement for physiotherapy in the intensive care unit’. This method consists of the identification of clinically relevant questions, followed by a systematic literature search, and summary of the evidence with final recommendations being moderated by feedback from experts. Results: Three relevant clinical domains were identified by experts: criteria to initiate treatment; measures to assess patients; evidence for effectiveness of treatments. In a systematic literature search, 129 relevant studies were identified and assessed for methodological quality and classified according to the level of evidence. The final evidence statement consisted of recommendations on eight absolute and four relative contra-indications to mobilization; a core set of nine specific instruments to assess impairments and activity restrictions; and six passive and four active effective interventions, with advice on (a) physiological measures to observe during treatment (with stopping criteria) and (b) what to record after the treatment. Conclusions: These recommendations form a protocol for treating people in an intensive care unit, based on best available evidence in mid-2014.

There are two primary ways of accessing physiotherapy for service users around the world. The direct access, as opposed to the indirect access which requires a referral from a general physician, has several merits including better quality, timeliness, cost effectiveness of treatment and better probability of preventing acute conditions from turning into chronic ailments. Despite these benefits, several countries including the UAE, do not allow direct access to physiotherapists. This study aims to understand the level of awareness among practicing physiotherapists in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) about direct access and to determine whether any of their demographic variables influence the way they perceive the concept. Further, the study sought to explore the perceived barriers and benefits of direct access according to the participating physiotherapists. An observational cross-sectional study was employed. The questionnaire survey developed by Bury and Stokes in 2013 was adapted and employed in this study. The instrument had six sections with close-ended items using a Likert five-point scale to rate them. Two hundred and sixty-four physiotherapists answered the questionnaire shared with them through a web link. Finally, MANOVA was employed to explore any influence of demographic variables on the opinions of the respondents. The findings showed that 70% of participants were aware about direct access while nearly 30% were completely unaware. Younger physiotherapists were more willing to endorse the practice whereas older ones were more apprehensive of the barriers. The main barriers reported were the limited support from the physicians and policy makers, professional autonomy, and the limited scope of practice for the physiotherapists, as well as evidence-based practice. The impact of demographic variables on direct access indicated that physiotherapists under the age of 23 endorsed direct access more strongly than other age groups. More efforts are needed to implement direct access in the UAE, considering the benefits of improved professional status, cost savings, patient satisfaction, and higher efficiency. This study recommends leadership support, professional autonomy, and mentorship as possible ways to achieve this goal.

Pulmonary rehabilitation has been shown to be effective for improving quality of life and function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but has not been studied extensively in homebound patients. Furthermore, little is known about the effectiveness of specific types of home-based interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of in-home rehabilitation programs for individuals with COPD considered homebound according to Medicare definition and to compare outcomes of 2 different rehabilitation interventions. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 home-based interventions including aerobic conditioning (group A) or functional strength training (group B), which were conducted over 8 weeks. In addition, all patients received COPD self-management education. Outcome measures were collected after completion of the intervention and after 16 weeks and included the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), Geriatric Depression Scale, and 2-minute walk test. Of 41 patients enrolled, 24 completed the 8-week intervention. On average, all CRQ quality-of-life domains improved in both groups, with the largest improvements in the CRQ-dyspnea domain. Overall, at 16 weeks, 80% of group A and 71% of group B patients had clinically significant improvements in the CRQ-dyspnea domain. Furthermore, depression scores improved in both groups. Only group A had a clinically significant improvement in walking distance. The results of this pilot study suggest that both forms of home-based rehabilitation may improve disease-specific quality of life in homebound patients with COPD.