Physiotherapy Services
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item The SelfSTarT intervention for low back pain patients presenting to first contact physiotherapists: a mixed methods service evaluation.(Wiley, 2024-03-21) Hadley-Barrows, TinaIntroduction: Globally, back pain is the leading cause of years of disability. In the United Kingdom, over 20 million people live with musculoskeletal (MSK) pain, with low back pain being one of the most common causes. National strategies promote self-management and the use of digital technologies to empower populations. Aims: To evaluate the uptake and impact of providing the SelfSTart approach (STarT Back and SelfBACK App) when delivered by a First Contact Physiotherapist (FCP) to people presenting with low back pain in primary care. Methods: Patients presenting with a new episode of low back pain underwent routine assessment and completion of a STarT Back questionnaire. Patients with low/medium scores were offered the SelfBACK App. A control population was provided by the MIDAS-GP study. Patient Experience, outcome measures, healthcare utilisation and retention were captured through the app and clinical systems (EMIS). Interviews with five FCPs explored the experiences of using the SelfSTart approach. Results: SelfSTarT was taken up by almost half (48%) of those to whom it was offered. Compared to MIDAS-GP, users were more likely to be younger, male, in work, and with higher health literacy. SelfSTarT users reported significant improved experiences relating to receiving an agreed care plan and receiving sufficient information. There were no significant differences in treatments offered. FCPs were positive about the app and felt it had value but wanted feedback on patient progress. They recognised that a digital solution would not be suitable for all. Conclusion: This approach offers an opportunity to empower and support self-management, using robustly evaluated digital technology.Item Outcomes following supervised exercise and home-based exercise for patients with intermittent claudication.(Elsevier., 2022-12-01) Leslie, Rosalind; May, Sophie; Scordis, Christopher; Isgar, Val; Poulton, Paula; Garnham, AndrewIntroduction Intermittent claudication (IC) is the most common symptom of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) which presents as a consequence of muscle ischaemia resulting from the atherosclerotic obstruction to arterial flow. High-quality evidence (Lane et al., 2017) shows that exercise programmes provide important benefits compared with usual care in improving pain-free and maximum walking distance in people with IC, but do not improve ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI). Methods Retrospective data were analysed to examine walking and ABPI outcomes for participants who completed a 12-week course of supervised or home-based exercise. All participants had a history of IC. Results 46 participants (mean age 69±11 years; 76% male; 29% current smokers) referred for exercise were assessed, completed a 12-week course of exercise (home-based or supervised) and subsequently attended for re-assessment. Claudication onset distance (COD) increased by 363% (mean improvement 344.7 ± 265.1m; p < .001) and peak walking distance (PWD) by 324.4% in the supervised exercise group; COD increased by 30.6% (mean improvement 32.8 ± 57.2 m; p = 0.026) and PWD by 31.5% in the home-based exercise group. Resting ABPI for the total cohort significantly improved from 0.82 ± 0.25 at A1 to 0.88 ± 0.25 at A2 (p = 0.027). Discussion A 12-week course of supervised exercise results in significantly greater walking distance outcomes (COD and PWD) than unmonitored home-based exercise. In contrast with previous findings (Lane et al. 2017), this retrospective study demonstrated a significant improvement in resting ABPI with both supervised exercise as well as home-based exercise. Conclusion A 12-week programme of exercise favourably influenced walking and ABPI outcomes for patients with IC. Both home-based exercise and supervised individualised exercise increased walking distances, but the magnitude of the improvement in walking outcomes was greater in individuals who attended supervised exercise therapy.Item Item Don’t ignore your pelvic floor!(Institute of Health and Social Care Management, 2022-08-11) Eddison, Nicola; Hastie, Lisa; Leslie, Rosalind; Moran, Ria; Turner, StephMany people feel uncomfortable talking about pelvic health and find that it is a difficult conversation to bring up. Pelvic floor dysfunction affects both men and women and can have a significant impact on quality of life, so it’s important that you seek medical advice if you have any of the symptoms described below.Item Effectiveness of somatosensory stimulation for the lower limb and foot to improve balance and gait after stroke: a systematic review.(MDPI Journals, 2022-08-19) Aries, AlisonThis systematic review’s purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of lower-limb and foot somatosensory stimulation to improve balance and gait post-stroke. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed. Included studies: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English with ethical approval statement. Studies of conditions other than stroke, functional electrical stimulation, and interventions eliciting muscle contraction, were excluded. AgeLine, AMED, CINAHL PLUS, EMBASE, EMCARE MEDLINE, PEDro, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched from 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2022. Two authors independently screened results, extracted data and assessed study quality using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool; 16 RCTs (n = 638) were included. Four studies showed a medium or large standardized between-group effect size (Cohen’s d) in favor of somatosensory stimulation, in relation to: customized insoles (d = 0.527), taping (d = 0.687), and electrical stimulation (two studies: d = 0.690 and d = 1.984). Although limited by study quality and heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes, with only one study’s results statistically significant, several interventions showed potential for benefit, exceeding the minimally important difference for gait speed. Further research with larger trials is required. This unfunded systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022321199).