Search

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine dose parameters for resistance exercise associated with improvements in pain and physical function in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) and whether these improvements were related to adherence. Methods: We searched six databases, from inception to January 28, 2023, for randomized controlled trials comparing land‐based, resistance exercise–only interventions with no intervention, or any other intervention. There were four subgroups of intervention duration: 0 to <3 months, 3 to 6 months, >6 to <12 months, ≥12 months. The between‐group effect was calculated for immediate postintervention pain and physical function (activities of daily living [ADL] and sports/recreation [SPORT]). Results: For both knee and hip, data from 280 studies showed moderate benefit for pain, physical function ADL, and physical function SPORT in favor of interventions 3 to 6 months. For the knee, there was also a moderate benefit for physical function ADL in favor of interventions >6 to <12 months. From 151 knee and hip studies that provided total exercise volume data (frequency, time, duration), there was no association between volume with the effect size for pain and physical function. A total of 74 studies (69 knee, 5 hip) reported usable adherence data. There was no association between adherence with the effect size for pain and physical function. Conclusion: In knee and hip OA, resistance exercise interventions 3 to 6 months (and for the knee >6 to <12 months) duration improve pain and physical function. Improvements do not depend on exercise volume or adherence, suggesting exercise does not require rigid adherence to a specific dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Around 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization. Objectives: To assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components. Search Methods: Standard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries. Selection Criteria: Only randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility. Data Collection and Analysis: Standard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health‐related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2‐tool and the GRADE‐framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Main Results: The screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall high risk of bias. Thirteen studies were conducted in participants with disabilities due to stroke, five studies with older adults living with disabilities, two studies with wheelchair users, one study in participants with disabilities after a hip fracture, and one study in participants with cognitive impairments. Skill training interventions versus control interventions (16 studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of skill training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility among all people living with disabilities both in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life activities among people with disabilities in the shorter term (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.84; I2 = 7%; RD: 0.15; 95% CI: −0.02 to 0.32; I2 = 71%; 692 participants; three studies; low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain in the longer term, based on very low certainty evidence. Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with disabilities due to cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter term (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.81; I2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve health‐related quality of life in the shorter term (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; I2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Physical training interventions versus control interventions (five studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of physical training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for: Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.61; I2 = NA; 228 participants; one study; low certainty evidence) and longer term (≥7 months) (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.54; I2 = NA; 216 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Comparison of different outdoor mobility interventions (one study) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of outdoor mobility interventions of different lengths in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health‐related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. No studies explored the efficacy of other types of interventions. Authors' Conclusions: Twenty‐two studies of interventions to improve outdoor mobility for people living with disabilities were identified, but the evidence still remains uncertain about most benefits and harms of these interventions, both in the short‐ and long term. This is primarily related to risk of bias, small underpowered studies and limited reporting of important outcomes for people living with disabilities. For people with disabilities, skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life in the short term, and improve activity outside the home and health‐related quality of life for people with cognitive impairments in the short term. Still, this is based on low certainty evidence from few studies and should be interpreted with caution. One study with low certainty evidence suggests that physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the short term. In addition, the effect sizes across all outcomes were considered small or trivial, and could be of limited relevance to people living with disabilities. The evidence is currently uncertain if there are interventions that can improve outdoor mobility for people with disabilities, and can improve other important outcomes, while avoiding harms. To guide decisions about the use of interventions to improve outdoor mobility, future studies should use more rigorous design and report important outcomes for people with disabilities to reduce the current uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the impact of occupational therapy (OT) on the self‐management of function, pain, fatigue, and lived experience for people living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Five databases and gray literature were searched up to June 30, 2022. Three reviewers screened titles and abstracts, with two independently extracting and assessing full texts using the Cochrane risk of bias (quantitative) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (qualitative) tools to assess study quality. Studies were categorized into four intervention types. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) (quantitative) and GRADE‐ Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (qualitative) were used to assess the quality of evidence for each intervention type. Results: Of 39 eligible papers, 29 were quantitative (n = 2,029), 4 qualitative (n = 50), and 6 mixed methods (n = 896). Good evidence supports patient education and behavior change programs for improving pain and function, particularly group sessions of joint protection education, but these do not translate to long‐term improvements for RA (>24 months). Comprehensive OT had mixed evidence (limited to home OT and an arthritis gloves program), whereas limited evidence was available for qualitative insights, splints and assistive devices, and self‐management for fatigue. Conclusion: Although patient education is promising for self‐managing RA, no strong evidence was found to support OT programs for self‐managing fatigue or patient experience and long‐term effectiveness. More research is required on lived experience, and the long‐term efficacy of self‐management approaches incorporating OT, particularly timing programs to meet the individual's conditional needs (i.e., early or established RA) to build on the few studies to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Oral health problems are common and are associated with various geriatric conditions in older adults. The importance of oral health has not been fully highlighted in the assessment and management of patients with heart failure. Here, we investigated the association between oral health status and the decline in physical function during hospitalization in elderly patients with acute heart failure. Materials and Methods: We evaluated oral health using the revised oral assessment guide in 77 patients aged 65 years or older who were admitted to hospital for acute heart failure. Oral health problems were defined as a revised oral assessment guide score ≥9. Results: Oral health problems were identified in 66.2% of the patients. Patients with oral health problems had high prevalence of decreased physical function, undernutrition, and cognitive impairment. A reduction in the Barthel Index, as an indicator of activities of daily living during hospitalization, was significant in the enrolled patients. The Barthel Index decreased more in patients with oral health problems than those with normal oral health. Furthermore, the revised oral assessment guide score on admission was found to be the only independent predictor of changes in the Barthel Index during hospitalization in the multivariate analyses. Conclusions: Oral assessment using the revised oral assessment guide during hospitalization could provide useful information for the management of elderly heart failure patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Age‐related alterations in physiology lead to declines in physical function that are associated with numerous adverse outcomes among older adults. Utilizing a hybrid design, we aimed to understand whether both long‐term and short‐term Tai Chi (TC) training are associated with age‐related decline in physical function in healthy older adults. We first conducted cross‐sectional comparisons among TC‐naïve older adults (n = 60, 64.2 ± 7.7 years), TC‐expert older adults (n = 27, 62.8 ± 7.6 years, 24.5 ± 12 years experience), and TC‐naïve younger adults (n = 15, 28.7 ± 3.2 years) to inform long‐term effects of TC training on physical function, including single leg stance time with eyes closed, grip strength, Timed Up and Go, maximum walking speed, functional reach, and vertical jump for lower‐extremity power. There were significant differences among the three groups on all the six tests. For most functional tests, TC‐experts performed better than age‐matched TC‐naïve controls and were statistically indistinguishable from young healthy adult controls. Long‐term TC training was associated with higher levels of physical function in older adults, suggesting a potential preventative healthy aging effect. In the randomized longitudinal trial, TC‐naïve subjects were randomized (n = 31 to Tai Chi group, n = 29 to usual care control group) to evaluate the short‐term effects of TC over 6 months on all outcomes. TC's short‐term impacts on physical function were small and not statistically significant. The impact of short‐term training in healthy adults is less clear. Both potential longer‐term preventive effects and shorter‐term restorative effects warrant further research with rigorous, adequately powered controlled clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]