Development of a Multimodal, Personalized Intervention of Virtual Reality Integrated Within Physiotherapy for Patients With Complex Chronic Low-Back Pain

Background: Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability. Physiotherapy is the most common treatment option for CLBP, but effects are often unsatisfactory. Virtual reality (VR) offers possibilities to enhance the effectiveness of physiotherapy treatment. Primary aim was to develop and test a personalized VR intervention integrated within a physiotherapy treatment for patients with CLBP.Methods: This study describes an intervention development process using mixed methods design that followed the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework. This involved a cocreation process with patients, physiotherapists, and researchers. A draft intervention was constructed based on a literature review and focus groups, and subsequently tested in a feasibility study and evaluated in focus groups. Focus group data were analyzed using thematic analysis. This intervention development process resulted in a final intervention.Results: Focus group data showed that VR and physiotherapy can strengthen each other when they are well integrated, and that VR needs to be administered under the right conditions including flawless technology, physiotherapists with sufficient affinity and training, and the right expectations from patients. The draft intervention was considered feasible after evaluation by four patients and three physiotherapists and was further complemented by expanding the training for physiotherapists and improving the protocols for physiotherapists and patients. The final intervention consisted of a 12-week physiotherapy treatment with three integrated VR modules: pain education, physical exercise, and relaxation.Conclusion: Using the MRC framework in cocreation with the end users, a personalized VR intervention integrated within a physiotherapy treatment for patients with CLBP was developed. This intervention was found to be feasible and will subsequently be evaluated for (cost-)effectiveness in a cluster randomized controlled trial

Limited use of virtual reality in primary care physiotherapy for patients with chronic pain

Background: Chronic pain is a disabling condition which is prevalent in about 20% of the adult population. Physiotherapy is the most common non-pharmacological treatment option for chronic pain, but often demonstrates unsatisfactory outcomes. Virtual Reality (VR) may offer the opportunity to complement physiotherapy treatment. As VR has only recently been introduced in physiotherapy care, it is unknown to what extent VR is used and how it is valued by physiotherapists. The aim of this study was to analyse physiotherapists’ current usage of, experiences with and physiotherapist characteristics associated with applying therapeutic VR for chronic pain rehabilitation in Dutch primary care physiotherapy. Methods: This online survey applied two rounds of recruitment: a random sampling round (873 physiotherapists invited, of which 245 (28%) were included) and a purposive sampling round (20 physiotherapists using VR included). Survey results were reported descriptively and physiotherapist characteristics associated with VR use were examined using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: In total, 265 physiotherapists participated in this survey study. Approximately 7% of physiotherapists reported using therapeutic VR for patients with chronic pain. On average, physiotherapists rated their overall experience with therapeutic VR at 7.0 and “whether they would recommend it” at 7.2, both on a 0–10 scale. Most physiotherapists (71%) who use therapeutic VR started using it less than two years ago and use it for a small proportion of their patients with chronic pain. Physiotherapists use therapeutic VR for a variety of conditions, including generalized (55%), neck (45%) and lumbar (37%) chronic pain. Physiotherapists use therapeutic VR mostly to reduce pain (68%), improve coordination (50%) and increase physical mobility (45%). Use of therapeutic VR was associated with a larger physiotherapy practice (OR = 2.38, 95% CI [1.14–4.98]). Unfamiliarity with VR seemed to be the primary reason for not using VR. Discussion: Therapeutic VR for patients with chronic pain is in its infancy in Dutch primary care physiotherapy practice as only a small minority uses VR. Physiotherapists that use therapeutic VR are modestly positive about the technology, with large heterogeneity between treatment goals, methods of administering VR, proposed working mechanisms and chronic pain conditions to treat.</p

The association between reduced knee joint proprioception and medial meniscal abnormalities using MRI in knee osteoarthritis: results from the Amsterdam osteoarthritis cohort.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is characterized by pain and activity limitations. In knee OA, proprioceptive accuracy is reduced and might be associated with pain and activity limitations. Although causes of reduced proprioceptive accuracy are divergent, medial meniscal abnormalities, which are highly prevalent in knee OA, have been suggested to play an important role. No study has focussed on the association between proprioceptive accuracy and meniscal abnormalities in knee OA. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between reduced proprioceptive accuracy and medial meniscal abnormalities in a clinical sample of knee OA subjects. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in 105 subjects with knee OA. Knee proprioceptive accuracy was assessed by determining the joint motion detection threshold in the knee extension direction. The knee was imaged with a 3.0 T magnetic resonance (MR) scanner. Number of regions with medial meniscal abnormalities and the extent of abnormality in the anterior and posterior horn and body were scored according to the Boston-Leeds Osteoarthritis Knee Score (BLOKS) method. Multiple regression analyzes were used to examine whether reduced proprioceptive accuracy was associated with medial meniscal abnormalities in knee OA subjects. RESULTS: Mean proprioceptive accuracy was 2.9degree + 1.9degree. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected medial meniscal abnormalities were found in the anterior horn (78%), body (80%) and posterior horn (90%). Reduced proprioceptive accuracy was associated with both the number of regions with meniscal abnormalities (P < 0.01) and the extent of abnormality (P = 0.02). These associations were not confounded by muscle strength, joint laxity, pain, age, gender, body mass index (BMI) and duration of knee complaints. CONCLUSION: This is the first study showing that reduced proprioceptive accuracy is associated with medial meniscal abnormalities in knee OA. The study highlights the importance of meniscal abnormalities in understanding reduced proprioceptive accuracy in persons with knee OA. Copyright 2013 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. All rights reserve

Moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Background Many international clinical guidelines recommend therapeutic exercise as a core treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis. We aimed to identify individual patient-level moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for reducing pain and improving physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. Methods We did a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing therapeutic exercise with non-exercise controls in people with knee osteoathritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. We searched ten databases from March 1, 2012, to Feb 25, 2019, for randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of exercise with non-exercise or other exercise controls on pain and physical function outcomes among people with knee osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. IPD were requested from leads of all eligible randomised controlled trials. 12 potential moderators of interest were explored to ascertain whether they were associated with short-term (12 weeks), medium-term (6 months), and long-term (12 months) effects of exercise on self-reported pain and physical function, in comparison with non-exercise controls. Overall intervention effects were also summarised. This study is prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017054049). Findings Of 91 eligible randomised controlled trials that compared exercise with non-exercise controls, IPD from 31 randomised controlled trials (n=4241 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials included participants with knee osteoarthritis (18 [58%] of 31 trials), hip osteoarthritis (six [19%]), or both (seven [23%]) and tested heterogeneous exercise interventions versus heterogeneous non-exercise controls, with variable risk of bias. Summary meta-analysis results showed that, on average, compared with non-exercise controls, therapeutic exercise reduced pain on a standardised 0–100 scale (with 100 corresponding to worst pain), with a difference of –6·36 points (95% CI –8·45 to –4·27, borrowing of strength [BoS] 10·3%, between-study variance [τ2] 21·6) in the short term, –3·77 points (–5·97 to –1·57, BoS 30·0%, τ2 14·4) in the medium term, and –3·43 points (–5·18 to –1·69, BoS 31·7%, τ2 4·5) in the long term. Therapeutic exercise also improved physical function on a standardised 0–100 scale (with 100 corresponding to worst physical function), with a difference of –4·46 points in the short term (95% CI –5·95 to –2·98, BoS 10·5%, τ2 10·1), –2·71 points in the medium term (–4·63 to –0·78, BoS 33·6%, τ2 11·9), and –3·39 points in the long term (–4·97 to –1·81, BoS 34·1%, τ2 6·4). Baseline pain and physical function moderated the effect of exercise on pain and physical function outcomes. Those with higher self-reported pain and physical function scores at baseline (ie, poorer physical function) generally benefited more than those with lower self-reported pain and physical function scores at baseline, with the evidence most certain in the short term (12 weeks). Interpretation There was evidence of a small, positive overall effect of therapeutic exercise on pain and physical function compared with non-exercise controls. However, this effect is of questionable clinical importance, particularly in the medium and long term. As individuals with higher pain severity and poorer physical function at baseline benefited more than those with lower pain severity and better physical function at baseline, targeting individuals with higher levels of osteoarthritis-related pain and disability for therapeutic exercise might be of merit

Limited use of virtual reality in primary care physiotherapy for patients with chronic pain

Background: Chronic pain is a disabling condition which is prevalent in about 20% of the adult population. Physiotherapy is the most common non-pharmacological treatment option for chronic pain, but often demonstrates unsatisfactory outcomes. Virtual Reality (VR) may offer the opportunity to complement physiotherapy treatment. As VR has only recently been introduced in physiotherapy care, it is unknown to what extent VR is used and how it is valued by physiotherapists. The aim of this study was to analyse physiotherapists’ current usage of, experiences with and physiotherapist characteristics associated with applying therapeutic VR for chronic pain rehabilitation in Dutch primary care physiotherapy. Methods: This online survey applied two rounds of recruitment: a random sampling round (873 physiotherapists invited, of which 245 (28%) were included) and a purposive sampling round (20 physiotherapists using VR included). Survey results were reported descriptively and physiotherapist characteristics associated with VR use were examined using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: In total, 265 physiotherapists participated in this survey study. Approximately 7% of physiotherapists reported using therapeutic VR for patients with chronic pain. On average, physiotherapists rated their overall experience with therapeutic VR at 7.0 and “whether they would recommend it” at 7.2, both on a 0–10 scale. Most physiotherapists (71%) who use therapeutic VR started using it less than two years ago and use it for a small proportion of their patients with chronic pain. Physiotherapists use therapeutic VR for a variety of conditions, including generalized (55%), neck (45%) and lumbar (37%) chronic pain. Physiotherapists use therapeutic VR mostly to reduce pain (68%), improve coordination (50%) and increase physical mobility (45%). Use of therapeutic VR was associated with a larger physiotherapy practice (OR = 2.38, 95% CI [1.14–4.98]). Unfamiliarity with VR seemed to be the primary reason for not using VR. Discussion: Therapeutic VR for patients with chronic pain is in its infancy in Dutch primary care physiotherapy practice as only a small minority uses VR. Physiotherapists that use therapeutic VR are modestly positive about the technology, with large heterogeneity between treatment goals, methods of administering VR, proposed working mechanisms and chronic pain conditions to treat.</p

Physiotherapy with integrated virtual reality for patients with complex chronic low back pain: protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (VARIETY study)

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the most common chronic pain condition worldwide. Currently, primary care physiotherapy is one of the main treatment options, but effects of this treatment are small. Virtual Reality (VR) could be an adjunct to physiotherapy care, due to its multimodal features. The primary aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of physiotherapy with integrated multimodal VR for patients with complex CLBP, compared to usual primary physiotherapy care. METHODS: A multicenter, two-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 120 patients with CLBP from 20 physiotherapists will be conducted. Patients in the control group will receive 12 weeks of usual primary physiotherapy care for CLBP. Patients in the experimental group will receive treatment consisting of 12 weeks of physiotherapy with integrated, immersive, multimodal, therapeutic VR. The therapeutic VR consists of the following modules: pain education, activation, relaxation and distraction. The primary outcome measure is physical functioning. Secondary outcome measures include pain intensity, pain-related fears, pain self-efficacy and economic measures. Effectiveness of the experimental intervention compared to the control intervention on primary and secondary outcome measures will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat principle, using linear mixed-model analyses. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic, multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial, will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy with integrated, personalized, multimodal, immersive VR in favor of usual physiotherapy care for patients with CLBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05701891)

No evidence for stratified exercise therapy being cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Economic evaluation alongside cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: A stratified approach to exercise therapy may yield superior clinical and economic outcomes, given the large heterogeneity of individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up of a model of stratified exercise therapy compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA, from a societal and healthcare perspective. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial in patients with knee OA (n = 335), comparing subgroup-specific exercise therapy for a ‘high muscle strength subgroup’, ‘low muscle strength subgroup’, and ‘obesity subgroup’ supplemented by a dietary intervention for the ‘obesity subgroup’ (experimental group), with usual (‘non-stratified’) exercise therapy (control group). Clinical outcomes included quality-adjusted life years – QALYs (EuroQol-5D-5 L), knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in daily living). Costs were measured by self-reported questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Data were analyzed through linear regression. Bootstrapping techniques were applied to estimate statistical uncertainty. Results: During 12-month follow-up, there were no significant between-group differences in clinical outcomes. The total societal costs of the experimental group were on average lower compared to the control group (mean [95% confidence interval]: € 405 [-1728, 918]), albeit with a high level of uncertainty. We found a negligible difference in QALYs between groups (mean [95% confidence interval]: 0.006 [-0.011, 0.023]). The probability of stratified exercise therapy being cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy from the societal perspective was around 73%, regardless of the willingness-to-pay threshold. However, this probability decreased substantially to 50% (willingness-to-pay threshold of €20.000/QALY) when using the healthcare perspective. Similar results were found for knee pain and physical functioning. Conclusions: We found no clear evidence that stratified exercise therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA. However, results should be interpreted with caution as the study power was lower than intended, due to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic

No evidence for stratified exercise therapy being cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Economic evaluation alongside cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: A stratified approach to exercise therapy may yield superior clinical and economic outcomes, given the large heterogeneity of individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up of a model of stratified exercise therapy compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA, from a societal and healthcare perspective. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial in patients with knee OA (n = 335), comparing subgroup-specific exercise therapy for a ?high muscle strength subgroup?, ?low muscle strength subgroup?, and ?obesity subgroup? supplemented by a dietary intervention for the ?obesity subgroup? (experimental group), with usual (?non-stratified?) exercise therapy (control group). Clinical outcomes included quality-adjusted life years ? QALYs (EuroQol-5D-5 L), knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in daily living). Costs were measured by self-reported questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Data were analyzed through linear regression. Bootstrapping techniques were applied to estimate statistical uncertainty. Results: During 12-month follow-up, there were no significant between-group differences in clinical outcomes. The total societal costs of the experimental group were on average lower compared to the control group (mean [95% confidence interval]: ? 405 [-1728, 918]), albeit with a high level of uncertainty. We found a negligible difference in QALYs between groups (mean [95% confidence interval]: 0.006 [-0.011, 0.023]). The probability of stratified exercise therapy being cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy from the societal perspective was around 73%, regardless of the willingness-to-pay threshold. However, this probability decreased substantially to 50% (willingness-to-pay threshold of ?20.000/QALY) when using the healthcare perspective. Similar results were found for knee pain and physical functioning. Conclusions: We found no clear evidence that stratified exercise therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA. However, results should be interpreted with caution as the study power was lower than intended, due to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic

Lack of Consensus Across Clinical Guidelines Regarding the Role of Psychosocial Factors Within Low Back Pain Care: A Systematic Review

It is widely accepted that psychosocial prognostic factors should be addressed by clinicians in their assessment and management of patient suffering from low back pain (LBP). On the other hand, an overview is missing how these factors are addressed in clinical LBP guidelines. Therefore, our objective was to summarize and compare recommendations regarding the assessment and management of psychosocial prognostic factors for LBP chronicity, as reported in clinical LBP guidelines. We performed a systematic search of clinical LBP guidelines (PROSPERO registration number 154730). This search consisted of a combination of previously published systematic review articles and a new systematic search in medical or guideline-related databases. From the included guidelines, we extracted recommendations regarding the assessment and management of LBP which addressed psychosocial prognostic factors (ie, psychological factors ["yellow flags"], perceptions about the relationship between work and health, ["blue flags"], system or contextual obstacles ["black flags") and psychiatric symptoms ["orange flags"]). In addition, we evaluated the level or quality of evidence of these recommendations. In total, we included 15 guidelines. Psychosocial prognostic factors were addressed in 13 of 15 guidelines regarding their assessment and in 14 of 15 guidelines regarding their management. Recommendations addressing psychosocial factors almost exclusively concerned "yellow" or "black flags," and varied widely across guidelines. The supporting evidence was generally of very low quality. We conclude that in general, clinical LBP guidelines do not provide clinicians with clear instructions about how to incorporate psychosocial factors in LBP care and should be optimized in this respect. More specifically, clinical guidelines vary widely in whether and how they address psychosocial factors, and recommendations regarding these factors generally require better evidence support. This emphasizes a need for a stronger evidence-base underlying the role of psychosocial risk factors within LBP care, and a need for uniformity in methodology and terminology across guidelines. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review summarized clinical guidelines on low back pain (LBP) on how they addressed the identification and management of psychosocial factors. This review revealed a large amount of variety across guidelines in whether and how psychosocial factors were addressed. Moreover, recommendations generally lacked details and were based on low quality evidence