Search

Objectives: Exercise, support and advice are the key treatment strategies of musculoskeletal problems. The aims of this study were to determine patients', physiotherapists', and other stakeholders' perspectives about supported home physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal problems and to identify the barriers and facilitators to rolling out this model of physiotherapy service delivery., Methods: This study was conducted as part of a process evaluation run alongside a large trial designed to determine whether supported home physiotherapy is as good or better than a course of in-person physiotherapy. Forty interviews were conducted with 20 trial participants, 15 physiotherapists, and 5 other stakeholders. The interviews were semi-structured and based on interview guides. Each interview was transcribed and a three-tiered coding tree was developed., Results: Six key themes were identified. Supported home physiotherapy (i) is convenient for some patients, (ii) does not always align with patients' and therapists' expectations about treatment (iii) is suitable for some but not all, (iv) can reduce personal connection and accountability, (v) has implications for physiotherapists' workloads, and (vi) has barriers and facilitators to future implementation., Conclusions: Findings suggest that patients are far more accepting of supported home physiotherapy than physiotherapists assume. This model of service delivery could be rolled out to improve access to physiotherapy and to provide a convenient and effective way of delivering physiotherapy to some patients with musculoskeletal conditions if our trial results indicate that supported home physiotherapy is as good or better than in-person physiotherapy., Clinical Trial Registry Number: ACTRN12619000065190 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS PAPER., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The REFORM (REhabilitation FOR Musculoskeletal conditions) trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (n=210) designed to determine whether a supported home exercise programme is as good or better than a course of face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of some musculoskeletal conditions. The trial is currently being conducted across Sydney government hospitals in Australia. This process evaluation will run alongside the REFORM trial. It combines qualitative and quantitative data to help explain the trial results and determine the feasibility of rolling out supported home exercise programmes in settings similar to the REFORM trial., Methods and Analysis: Two theoretical frameworks underpin our process evaluation methodology: the Realist framework (context, mechanism, outcomes) considers the causal assumptions as to why a supported home exercise programme may be as good or better than face-to-face physiotherapy in terms of the context, mechanisms and outcomes of the trial. The RE-AIM framework describes the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance of the intervention. These two frameworks will be broadly used to guide this process evaluation using a mixed-methods approach. For example, qualitative data will be derived from interviews with patients, healthcare professionals and stakeholders, and quantitative data will be collected to determine the cost and feasibility of providing supported home exercise programmes. These data will be analysed iteratively before the analysis of the trial results and will be triangulated with the results of the primary and secondary outcomes., Ethics and Dissemination: This trial will be conducted in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2018) and the Note for Good Clinical Practice (CPMP/ICH-135/95). Ethical approval was obtained on 17 March 2017 from the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (trial number: HREC/16HAWKE/431-RESP/16/287) with an amendment for the process evaluation approved on 4 February 2020. The results of the process evaluation will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12619000065190., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MLF is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Investigator Fellowship. JRZ is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Investigator Fellowship, (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Exercise, support and advice are considered core components of management for most musculoskeletal conditions and are typically provided by physiotherapists through regular face-to-face treatments. However, exercise can be provided remotely as part of a home exercise programme, while support and advice can be provided over the telephone. There is initial evidence from trials and systematic reviews to suggest that remotely provided physiotherapy can be used to manage a variety of musculoskeletal conditions safely and effectively., Methods and Analysis: The aim of this single-blind randomised controlled non-inferiority trial is to determine whether a supported home exercise programme is as good as or better than face-to-face physiotherapy for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. Two hundred and ten participants will be recruited from five public hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Participants will be randomised to either the supported home exercise group or the face-to-face physiotherapy group. Participants allocated to the supported home exercise group will initially receive one face-to-face session with the trial physiotherapist and will then be managed remotely for the next 6 weeks. Participants allocated to the face-to-face physiotherapy group will receive a course of physiotherapy as typically provided in Sydney government hospitals. The primary outcome is function measured by the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks. There will be nine secondary outcomes measured at 6 and 26 weeks. Separate analyses will be conducted on each outcome, and all analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. A health economic evaluation will be conducted from a health funder plus patient perspective., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained on the 17 March 2017 from the Northern Sydney Local Health District HREC, trial number HREC/16HAWKE/431-RESP/16/287. The results of this study will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals and be presented at national and international conferences. Recruitment commenced in March 2019, and it is anticipated that the trial will be completed by December 2021. This trial will investigate two different models of physiotherapy care for people with musculoskeletal conditions., Trial Registration Number: CPMP/ICH-135/95., Protocol Version: The most recent version of the protocol is V.1.2 dated November 2019., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Hemispatial neglect is a severe cognitive condition frequently observed after a stroke, associated with unawareness of one side of space, disability and poor long-term outcome. Visuomotor feedback training (VFT) is a neglect rehabilitation technique that involves a simple, inexpensive and feasible training of grasping-to-lift rods at the centre. We compared the immediate and long-term effects of VFT vs. a control training when delivered in a home-based setting. Twenty participants were randomly allocated to an intervention (who received VFT) or a control group (n = 10 each). Training was delivered for two sessions by an experimenter and then patients self-administered it for 10 sessions over two weeks. Outcome measures included the Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT), line bisection, Balloons Test, Landmark task, room description task, subjective straight-ahead pointing task and the Stroke Impact Scale. The measures were obtained before, immediately after the training sessions and after four-months post-training. Significantly greater short and long-term improvements were obtained after VFT when compared to control training in line bisection, BIT and spatial bias in cancellation. VFT also produced improvements on activities of daily living. We conclude that VFT is a feasible, effective, home-based rehabilitation method for neglect patients that warrants further investigation with well-designed randomised controlled trials on a large sample of patients.

An influential model of vision suggests the presence of two visual streams within the brain: a dorsal occipito-parietal stream which mediates action and a ventral occipito-temporal stream which mediates perception. One of the cornerstones of this model is DF, a patient with visual form agnosia following bilateral ventral stream lesions. Despite her inability to identify and distinguish visual stimuli, DF can still use visual information to control her hand actions towards these stimuli. These observations have been widely interpreted as demonstrating a double dissociation from optic ataxia, a condition observed after bilateral dorsal stream damage in which patients are unable to act towards objects that they can recognize. In Experiment 1, we investigated how patient DF performed on the classical diagnostic task for optic ataxia, reaching in central and peripheral vision. We replicated recent findings that DF is remarkably inaccurate when reaching to peripheral targets, but not when reaching in free vision. In addition we present new evidence that her peripheral reaching errors follow the optic ataxia pattern increasing with target eccentricity and being biased towards fixation. In Experiments 2 and 3, for the first time we examined DF's on-line control of reaching using a double-step paradigm in fixation-controlled and free-vision versions of the task. DF was impaired when performing fast on-line corrections on all conditions tested, similarly to optic ataxia patients. Our findings question the long-standing assumption that DF's dorsal visual stream is functionally intact and that her on-line visuomotor control is spared. In contrast, in addition to visual form agnosia, DF also has visuomotor symptoms of optic ataxia which are most likely explained by bilateral damage to the superior parietal-occipital cortex (SPOC). We thus conclude that patient DF can no longer be considered as an appropriate single-case model for testing the neural basis of perception and action dissociations., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

According to Milner and Goodale's model (The visual brain in action, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006) areas in the ventral visual stream mediate visual perception and oV-line actions, whilst regions in the dorsal visual stream mediate the on-line visual control of action. Strong evidence for this model comes from a patient (DF), who suffers from visual form agnosia after bilateral damage to the ventro-lateral occipital region, sparing V1. It has been reported that she is normal in immediate reaching and grasping, yet severely impaired when asked to perform delayed actions. Here we investigated whether this dissociation would extend to saccade execution. Neurophysiological studies and TMS work in humans have shown that the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), on the right in particular (supposedly spared in DF), is involved in the control of memory-guided saccades. Surprisingly though, we found that, just as reported for reaching and grasping, DF's saccadic accuracy was much reduced in the memory compared to the stimulus-guided condition. These data support the idea of a tight coupling of eye and hand movements and further suggest that dorsal stream structures may not be sufficient to drive memory-guided saccadic performance.