Dataset Information

The effect of an integrated multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme alternating inpatient interventions with home-based activities for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness of an integrated rehabilitation programme with an existing rehabilitation programme in patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN:A single-centre, pragmatic, two-arm parallel, randomized controlled trial (1:1 ratio). SETTING:A rheumatology inpatient rehabilitation centre in Denmark. SUBJECTS:A total of 165 adults (aged???18?years) with chronic low back pain. INTERVENTIONS:An integrated rehabilitation programme comprising an alternation of three weeks of inpatient stay and 12?weeks of home-based activities was compared with an existing rehabilitation programme of four weeks of inpatient stay. MAIN MEASURES:Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and at the 26-week follow-up. The primary outcome was back-specific disability (Oswestry Disability Index). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale), pain self-efficacy (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire), health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5 Domain 5-level (EQ-5D)), and depression (Major Depression Inventory). A complete case analysis was performed. RESULTS:A total of 303 patients were assessed for eligibility of whom 165 (mean age: 50?years (SD 13) and mean Oswestry Disability Index score 42 (SD 11)) were randomized (83 to existing rehabilitation programme and 82 to integrated rehabilitation programme). Overall, 139 patients provided the 26-week follow-up data. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between programmes. The between-group difference in the Oswestry Disability Index score when adjusting for the corresponding baseline score was -0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI): -4.02, 3.45) which was neither statistically nor clinically significant. No significant differences were found in the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION:An integrated rehabilitation programme was no more effective than an existing rehabilitation programme at the 26-week follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Schmidt AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7029437 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of an integrated multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme alternating inpatient interventions with home-based activities for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Schmidt Anne Mette AM Schiøttz-Christensen Berit B Foster Nadine E NE Laurberg Trine Bay TB Maribo Thomas T

Clinical rehabilitation 20200108 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the effectiveness of an integrated rehabilitation programme with an existing rehabilitation programme in patients with chronic low back pain.<h4>Design</h4>A single-centre, pragmatic, two-arm parallel, randomized controlled trial (1:1 ratio).<h4>Setting</h4>A rheumatology inpatient rehabilitation centre in Denmark.<h4>Subjects</h4>A total of 165 adults (aged ⩾ 18 years) with chronic low back pain.<h4>Interventions</h4>An integrated rehabilitation programme comprising ...[more]

PMID: 31912752

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study investigated the long-term effects (12?months post-rehabilitation) of a standard inpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), in which a control group (CG) received pain competence training and an intervention group (IG) received combined pain competence and depression prevention training.MethodsIn this prospective control group study with cluster-block randomization, a total of n?=?583 patients were included into per protocol analyses. To examine the effects of rehabilitation on depressive symptoms, pain self-efficacy, and work ability, patients were stratified in repeated-measures analyses of variance by treatment condition (IG vs. CG), level of depressive symptoms (low vs. high), and time of assessment (pre, post, 6, and 12?months after rehabilitation). The impact of each treatment on pain-related days of sick leave (DSL; dichotomized into ? vs. >?2?weeks) was determined separately by conducting non-parametric analyses. Multiple imputations (n?=?1225) confirmed the results. Effects were interpreted if clinical significance was given.ResultsOnly patients with high levels of depressive symptoms showed long-term improvements in depressive symptoms and self-efficacy. Long-term improvements in work ability index and mental work ability item were restricted to the IG. Furthermore, long-term effects on pain-related DSL were ascertained by per protocol and multiple imputation analyses only for the IG.ConclusionsPatients with high levels of depressive symptoms showed improvements in depressive symptoms and self-efficacy, supporting the psychological effectiveness of both interventions. However, the beneficial long-term effects of rehabilitation on work ability and pain-related DSL among the IG support implementation of combined pain competence and depression prevention training.Trial registrationDRKS00015465 (German Clinical Trial Register DRKS); date of registration: 03.09.2018.

Project description:BackgroundAlmost half of the stroke patients admitted to geriatric rehabilitation has persisting problems after discharge. Currently, there is no evidence based geriatric rehabilitation programme available for older stroke patients, combining inpatient rehabilitation with adequate ambulatory aftercare in the community. Therefore, we developed an integrated multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme that includes aftercare for older persons with stroke. We evaluated the effectiveness of this newly developed rehabilitation programme in comparison to usual care.MethodsA multicentre randomised controlled trial was conducted in eight geriatric rehabilitation stroke units and their collaborating partners in primary care. The study population involved stroke patients and their informal caregivers who were aged 65 or over, living in the community before admission to geriatric rehabilitation, and expected to be able to return home after discharge. The programme consisted of three modules: inpatient neurorehabilitation, home-based self-management training, and stroke education. For patients, daily activity (FAI) was assessed as primary outcome and functional dependence (Katz-15), perceived quality of life (SSQoL) and social participation (IPA) as secondary outcomes. Additionally, among informal caregivers perceived care burden (self-rated burden VAS), objective care burden (Erasmus iBMG), and quality of life (CarerQol), were assessed as secondary outcomes.ResultsIn total 190 patients and 172 informal caregivers were included. Mean age of the patients in the intervention group was 78.9 years (SD = 7.0) and in the usual care group 79.0 years (SD = 6.5). Significant favourable effects for the programme were observed for the subscale autonomy outdoors of the IPA (- 2.15, P = .047, and for the informal caregivers perceived care burden (1.23, P = .048. For the primary outcome daily activity and the other secondary outcomes, no significant effects were observed.ConclusionThe integrated multidisciplinary programme had no effect on daily activity of older stroke patients. However, patients participating in the programme had a higher level of perceived autonomy of outdoor activities and their informal caregivers perceived a lower care burden. The programme might be promising in providing adequate (after) care, although adaptation of the programme is recommended to increase its feasibility and improve its effects.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN62286281 . Registered 19-3-2010.

Project description:Background: Exercise rehabilitation programmes, traditionally involving supervised exercise sessions, have had to rapidly adapt to virtual delivery in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to minimise patient contacts. In the absence of an effective vaccine, the pandemic is likely to persist in the medium term and during this time it is important that the feasibility and effectiveness of remote solutions is considered. We have previously established the feasibility of the Rehabilitation Strategies following Oesophago-gastric Cancer (ReStOre) intervention - a face to face multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer survivors. This study will examine the feasibility of a virtually delivered 12-week multi-component ReStOre@Home programme. Methods: This single arm feasibility study will recruit 12 patients who have completed curative treatment for oesophago-gastric cancer. Participants will complete the 12-week ReStOre@Home programme consisting of exercise (aerobic and resistance training), 1:1 dietary counselling and group education sessions through virtual delivery. Underpinned by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework, feasibility will be determined by recruitment rates, adherence, retention, incidents, and acceptability. Acceptability will be assessed qualitatively through post-intervention interview and the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes will be assessed pre and post-intervention and will include measures of physical performance (cardiopulmonary exercise test, short physical performance battery, hand grip strength, Godin Leisure Time Questionnaire, and body composition), health related quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30) and oesophago-gastric cancer specific subscale (EORTC-QLQ-OG25), fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), and venous blood samples will be collected for the UGI Cancer Survivorship Biobank. Discussion: The ReStOre@Home feasibility study will provide important data regarding the amenability of a multidisciplinary programme designed for UGI cancer survivors to virtual delivery. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04603339 (26/10/2020).

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the long term effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesElectronic searches of Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to February 2014, supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and forward citation tracking of included trials.Study selection criteriaTrials published in full; participants with low back pain for more than three months; multidisciplinary rehabilitation involved a physical component and one or both of a psychological component or a social or work targeted component; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was delivered by healthcare professionals from at least two different professional backgrounds; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was compared with a non- multidisciplinary intervention.ResultsForty one trials included a total of 6858 participants with a mean duration of pain of more than one year who often had failed previous treatment. Sixteen trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.37; equivalent to 0.5 points in a 10 point pain scale) and disability (0.23, 0.06 to 0.40; equivalent to 1.5 points in a 24 point Roland-Morris index) compared with usual care. Nineteen trials provided low quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.51, -0.01 to 1.04) and disability (0.68, 0.16 to 1.19) compared with physical treatments, but significant statistical heterogeneity across trials was present. Eight trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves the odds of being at work one year after intervention (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53) compared with physical treatments. Seven trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation does not improve the odds of being at work (odds ratio 1.04, 0.73 to 1.47) compared with usual care. Two trials that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation with surgery found little difference in outcomes and an increased risk of adverse events with surgery.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation interventions were more effective than usual care (moderate quality evidence) and physical treatments (low quality evidence) in decreasing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. For work outcomes, multidisciplinary rehabilitation seems to be more effective than physical treatment but not more effective than usual care.

Project description:BackgroundThe recent onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to reduce barriers to access physical therapy and associated care through the use of web-based programs and telehealth for those seeking treatment for low back pain (LBP). Despite this need, few studies have compared the effectiveness of clinic-based versus web-based or telehealth services.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of clinic-based multidisciplinary therapy in an integrated practice unit (C-IPU) model with online integrated multidisciplinary therapy (O-IPU) in individuals undergoing conservative care for LBP.MethodsA total of 1090 participants were prospectively recruited to participate in a clinical trial registry (NCT04081896) through the SpineZone rehabilitation IPU program. All participants provided informed consent. Participants were allocated to the C-IPU (N=988) or O-IPU (N=102) groups based on their personal preferences. The C-IPU program consisted of a high-intensity machine-based core muscle resistance training program, whereas the O-IPU program consisted of therapist-directed home core strengthening exercises through a web-based platform. Changes in LBP symptom severity (Numeric Pain Rating Scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), goal achievement (Patient-Specific Functional Scale), and frequency of opioid use were compared between the C-IPU and O-IPU groups using multivariate linear regression modeling adjusted for age, gender, treatment number, program duration, and baseline pain and disability.ResultsApproximately 93.03% (1014/1090) of the participants completed their recommended programs, with no group differences in dropout rates (P=.78). The C-IPU group showed greater pain relief (P<.001) and reductions in disability (P=.002) than the O-IPU group, whereas the O-IPU group reported greater improvements in goal achievement (P<.001). Both programs resulted in reduced opioid use frequency, with 19.0% (188/988) and 21.5% (22/102) of participants reporting cessation of opioid use for C-IPU and O-IPU programs, respectively, leaving only 5.59% (61/1090) of participants reporting opioid use at the end of their treatment.ConclusionsBoth in-clinic and web-based multidisciplinary programs are beneficial in reducing pain, disability, and opioid use and in improving goal achievement. The differences between these self-selected groups shed light on patient characteristics, which require further investigation and could help clinicians optimize these programs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04081896; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04081896.

Dataset Information

The effect of an integrated multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme alternating inpatient interventions with home-based activities for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

The effect of an integrated multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme alternating inpatient interventions with home-based activities for patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets