An exploration of the feasibility of a digital self-management intervention for women with pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain

Background: Pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain (PLPP) is a common condition resulting in reduced function and health-related quality of life. Many women with PLPP self-manage the condition, and evidence suggests that improved information provision may facilitate this. Digital technology offers opportunities to deliver health information to large audiences with minimal clinical time commitment. A digital intervention to support the self-management of PLPP is therefore worthy of consideration. Aim: This research aimed to explore the feasibility of a digital self-management intervention for women with PLPP. Study design: A systematised review was undertaken to inform the design of a mixed-methods study using an exploratory sequential design. Methods: Systematised review: RCTs examining the effectiveness of digital interventions for the management or self-management of low back pain (LBP), pelvic girdle pain (PGP), or lumbopelvic pain (LPP) were included. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Phase 1: Semi-structured interviews with NHS service users and focus groups with NHS-based physiotherapists and midwives. Phase 2: Development of an app-based intervention to support the self-management of PLPP using the Behaviour Change Wheel approach. Phase 3: Retrospective quantitative analysis of pseudonymised app user engagement data from March 2020 to November 2021. Findings: Systematised review: 26 RCTs were included. No RCTs testing digital interventions for PGP or LPP could be located. No included trials explicitly stated the inclusion of pregnant women. Six of the 26 included RCTs reported the effectiveness of digital interventions in improving pain and disability in individuals with LBP. Effective interventions included mobile/tablet apps, social media, and multimodal interventions. Two of the six trials reporting effective interventions were at high risk of bias. Phase 1: Seven NHS service users and ten clinicians (six midwives and four physiotherapists) viewed the use of digital technologies for information provision positively. A preference for apps for information provision was reported, and clinicians were willing to integrate digital interventions into their practice. Service users highlighted their PLPP-related information needs. Phase 3: 167 NHS service users were invited to use the app during the study period; 106 (63.5%) chose to register for use. Thirty-five engaged with the self-monitoring feature on a single occasion; five engaged with this feature more than once. Two users engaged with the goal-setting function. No users exchanged any in-app messages with their clinicians. Conclusions: The systematised review highlighted the lack of attention given to women with PLPP in the digital self-management literature and underscored the need for targeted intervention development and evaluation for this population. The findings of this review also suggested that mobile apps may be worthy of consideration for intervention delivery for women with PLPP. Phase 1 found a high level of acceptability and a willingness of clinicians to integrate a digital intervention into practice. Overall, uptake of and engagement with the app aligned with expectations. Implementation of the app demonstrated practicability in an NHS setting. Further work is needed to understand the levels of engagement reported and whether in-app information met users’ needs

Rotator cuff disorders: An updated survey of current (2023) UK physiotherapy practice

BackgroundClinical guidelines recommend treatment by a physiotherapist for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder. Despite this recommendation, research evidence supporting the effectiveness of treatment by a physiotherapist is uncertain. While developing a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of treatment by a physiotherapist for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorders we first aimed to understand current practice as a basis for defining usual care.MethodsAn online survey was developed based on a clinical vignette used in a previous survey exploring physiotherapy practice for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder. UK-based physiotherapists were invited to complete the survey via X and email across professional networks.Results170 complete responses were received. 167 (98%) respondents would offer advice/education to patients with shoulder rotator cuff disorders; 146 (86%) would use isotonic exercise (including concentric/eccentric strengthening); 20 (12%) would offer a corticosteroid injection; 7 (4%) would use joint mobilisation. 168/169 (99%) would offer in-person assessment; 115 (68%) expect to deliver treatment over 3-4 sessions. 50% agreed there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of physiotherapy treatment for patients with shoulder rotator cuff disorders. 76% agreed that patients with this condition can recover without physiotherapy intervention. ConclusionsExercise and advice remain the most common treatments offered by physiotherapists for people with shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder. Corticosteroid injections are infrequently considered. Uncertainty about the effectiveness of treatment by a physiotherapist for shoulder pain due to rotator cuff disorder is evident.<br/

Current and future advances in practice: tendinopathies of the shoulder

Tendinopathies of the shoulder are a burdensome problem. Current treatments include exercise, physical therapies, corticosteroid injections, and surgery. However, the clinical outcomes from randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions are largely unremarkable. Given the apparent lack of progress in improving clinical outcomes for patients, it is appropriate to consider other avenues. Research has identified a link between lifestyle-related modifiable risk factors including smoking, overweight, physical inactivity, and the onset and persistence of tendinopathies of the shoulder. Further research is required to understand whether addressing these factors results in better clinical outcomes for patients. Teachable moments and shared decision-making are concepts that could enable clinicians to integrate the assessment and management of these lifestyle factors. Given these lifestyle factors also increase the risk of developing other common morbidities, including cardiovascular disease, an evolution of routine clinical care in this way could represent an important step forward

Exploring the experiences and perceptions of patients awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery: an integrated qualitative study within the POWER pilot and feasibility trial

Background: As waiting times for orthopaedic surgery increase, there have been calls to move from ‘waiting lists’ to ‘preparation lists’, to better prepare patients for surgery. In this context, a pilot randomised controlled trial (POWER) was conducted, comparing physiotherapist-led exercise to waiting-list control (usual care), for patients awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery. This qualitative study was integrated within the pilot trial.Objectives: ●Explore experiences of adults awaiting rotator cuff repair surgery in the NHS●Explore the acceptability of the physiotherapist-led exercise intervention●Explore barriers and enablers to recruitment, retention, and adherence Design: Integrated qualitative study with semi-structured telephone interviewsMethods: Adults awaiting rotator cuff repair, consenting to participate in the trial were eligible. Sampling was purposive regarding age, gender, randomised allocation, and hospital site. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.Results: 20 participants were recruited (age range 49 to 81 years; 12 male, 10 randomised to physiotherapist-led exercise). Many participants were unable to recall their experiences of trial processes; nonetheless, three themes were identified from the data: experience of shoulder pain and pathway to treatment; communication and decision-making in the context of rotator cuff repair surgery; and experiences of the POWER physiotherapist-led exercise intervention and processes. Conclusions: Patients experience significant burden due to shoulder pain. Their journey to surgery can be long, confusing, and associated with perceived abandonment. In a future trial, the intervention should offer opportunity for shared decision-making, optional exit from the surgical pathway, and an individualised exercise programme

Rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: A multi-centre pilot & feasibility randomised controlled trial (RaCeR)

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early patient-directed rehabilitation versus standard rehabilitation following surgical repair of the rotator cuff of the shoulder. Design: Two-arm, multi-centre pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial. Setting: Five National Health Service hospitals in England. Participants: Adults (n = 73) with non-traumatic rotator cuff tears scheduled for repair were recruited and randomly allocated remotely prior to surgery. Interventions: Early patient-directed rehabilitation (n = 37); advised to remove their sling as soon as able and move as symptoms allow. Standard rehabilitation (n = 36); sling immobilisation for four weeks. Measures: (1) Randomisation of 20% or more eligible patients. (2) Difference in time out of sling of 40% or more between groups. (3) Follow-up greater than 70%. Results: 73/185 (39%) potentially eligible patients were randomised. Twenty participants were withdrawn, 11 due to not receiving rotator cuff repair. The between-group difference in proportions of participants who exceeded the cut-off of 222.6 hours out of the sling was 50% (80% CI = 29%, 72%), with the early patient-directed rehabilitation group reporting greater time out of sling. 52/73 (71%) and 52/53 (98%) participants were followed-up at 12 weeks when withdrawals were included and excluded respectively. Eighteen full-thickness re-tears were reported (early patient-directed rehabilitation = 7, standard rehabilitation = 11). Five serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: A main randomised controlled trial is feasible but would require allocation of participants following surgery to counter the issue of withdrawal due to not receiving surgery

Rehabilitation following shoulder arthroplasty in the United Kingdom National Health Service: A survey of publicly facing information.

INTRODUCTION:The prevalence of shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is rising, but there is limited research evaluating rehabilitation following SA and whether there is an optimal approach remains unknown. The aim of this study was to understand current National Health Service (NHS) practice for rehabilitation following SA as a platform for conducting much needed further research. METHODS:Two reviewers independently undertook electronic searches for publicly available information sheets (PIS) from websites of NHS Trusts that included detail about rehabilitation following SA, for example, duration of immobilisation. One reviewer extracted data, and a second reviewer verified this. ETHICAL APPROVAL:Not required. RESULTS:Forty-three PIS from 40 Trusts were identified. Twenty-four referred to more than one type of arthroplasty (anatomic, reverse and hemiarthroplasty) but did not describe different approaches to rehabilitation based on prosthesis type. Twenty-five PIS provided some instruction regarding movement restrictions, which varied considerably. All PIS referred to postoperative immobilisation, typically with a sling, with median duration of 4 weeks (range 0 to 8). Thirty-four PIS reported commencing passive exercise immediately. Median time to commencing active exercise was 4 weeks (range 1 to 6) and 5 weeks (range 1 to 16) for resisted exercise. Median time expected to return to driving was 6 weeks (range 3 to 12) and general work 12 weeks (range 3 to 26). CONCLUSION:This study has highlighted significant heterogeneity between rehabilitation approaches following SA, not previously reported in the United Kingdom, with a lack of specific rehabilitation PIS for different prosthesis types. Our results will facilitate evaluation of rehabilitation strategies in future research

Protocol for a multi-centre pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative study: rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair (the RaCeR study)

Background Shoulder pain is a highly prevalent complaint and disorders of the rotator cuff, including tears, are thought to be the most common cause. The number of operations to repair the torn rotator cuff has risen significantly in recent years. While surgical techniques have progressed, becoming less invasive and more secure, rehabilitation programmes have remained largely like those initially developed when surgical techniques were less advanced and more invasive. Uncertainty remains in relation to the length of post-surgical immobilisation and the amount of early load permitted at the repair site. In the context of this uncertainty, current practice is to follow a generally cautious approach, including long periods of immobilisation in a sling and avoidance of early active rehabilitation. Systematic review evidence suggests early mobilisation might be beneficial but further high-quality studies are required to evaluate this. Methods/design RaCeR is a two-arm, multi-centre pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative interviews. A total of 76 patients with non-traumatic rotator cuff tears who are scheduled to have a surgical repair will be recruited from up to five UK NHS hospitals and randomly allocated to either early patient-directed rehabilitation or standard rehabilitation that incorporates sling immobilisation. RaCeR will assess the feasibility of a future, substantive, multi-centre randomised controlled trial to test the hypothesis that, compared to standard rehabilitation incorporating sling immobilisation, early patient-directed rehabilitation is both more clinically effective and more cost-effective. In addition, a sample of patients and clinicians will be interviewed to understand the acceptability of the interventions and the barriers and enablers to adherence to the interventions. Discussion Research to date suggests that there is the possibility of reducing the patient burden associated with post-operative immobilisation following surgery to repair the torn rotator cuff and improve clinical outcomes. There is a clear need for a high-quality, adequately powered, randomised trial to better inform clinical practice. Prior to a large-scale trial, we first need to undertake a pilot and feasibility trial to address current uncertainties about recruitment, retention and barriers to adherence to the interventions, particularly in relation to whether patients will be willing to begin moving their arm early after their operation

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of individualised (early) patient-directed rehabilitation versus standard rehabilitation after surgical repair of the rotator cuff of the shoulder: protocol for a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial with integrated Quintet Recruitment Intervention (RaCeR 2).

Introduction: Despite the high number of operations and surgical advancement, rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair has not progressed for over 20 years. The traditional cautious approach might be contributing to sub-optimal outcomes. Our aim is to assess whether individualised (early) patient-directed rehabilitation results in less shoulder pain and disability at 12 weeks after surgical repair of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff compared to current standard (delayed) rehabilitation. Methods and analysis: The rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair (RaCeR 2) study is a pragmatic multi-centre, open label, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot phase. It has a parallel group design with 1:1 allocation ratio, full health economic evaluation, and Quintet Recruitment Intervention. Adults awaiting arthroscopic surgical repair of a full-thickness tear are eligible to participate. Upon completion of surgery, 638 participants will be randomised. The intervention (individualised early patient-directed rehabilitation) includes advice to the patient to remove their sling as soon as they feel able, gradually begin using their arm as they feel able and a specific exercise programme. Sling removal and movement is progressed by the patient over time according to agreed goals and within their own pain and tolerance. The comparator (standard rehabilitation) includes advice to the patient to wear the sling for at least four weeks and only to remove while eating, washing, dressing or performing specific exercises. Progression is according to specific timeframes rather than as the patient feels able. The primary outcome measure is the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) total score at 12-week post-randomisation. The trial timeline is 56 months in total, from September 2022. <br/

Effectiveness of early versus delayed rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: systematic review and meta-analyses

Objective To investigate the effectiveness of early rehabilitation compared with delayed/standard rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair for pain, function, range of movement, strength, and repair integrity. Design Systematic review and meta-analyses. Methods We searched databases and included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early with delayed/standard rehabilitation for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair surgery. We assessed risk of bias of the RCTs using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Results Twenty RCTs, with 1841 patients, were included. The majority of the RCTs were of high or unclear risk of overall bias. We found substantial variations in the rehabilitation programmes, time in the sling and timing of exercise progression. We found no statistically significant differences for pain and function at any follow-up except for the outcome measure Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation at six months (MD: 6.54; 95%CI: 2.24–10.84) in favour of early rehabilitation. We found statistically significant differences in favour of early rehabilitation for shoulder flexion at six weeks (MD: 7.36; 95%CI: 2.66–12.06), three (MD: 8.45; 95%CI: 3.43–13.47) and six months (MD: 3.57; 95%CI: 0.81–6.32) and one year (MD: 1.42; 95%CI: 0.21–2.64) and similar differences for other planes of movement. In terms of repair integrity, early mobilisation does not seem to increase the risk of re-tears (OR:1.05; 95%CI: 0.64–1.75). Discussion Current approaches to early mobilisation, based largely on early introduction of passive movement, did not demonstrate significant differences in most clinical outcomes, although we found statistically significant differences in favour of early rehabilitation for range of movement. Importantly, there were no differences in repair integrity between early and delayed/standard rehabilitation. Most rehabilitation programmes did not consider early active movement as soon as the patient feels able. With ongoing variation in rehabilitation protocols there remains a need for large high quality RCT to inform the optimal approach to rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair surgery

A qualitative analysis of migrant social workers’ work experiences and perceived prejudice from an empowering acculturative integration approach

An increasing number of migrant social workers are employed in the UK social work sector. This article explores the acculturative integration experiences of a small group of migrant social workers. We critically observe that research on migrant professionals’ trajectories should adopt theories that emphasise people’s empowerment and potential for agency. We use a framework drawing on liberation psychology for analysing the autobiographical narratives of a sample of migrant social workers employed in England. Findings indicate that the participants perceived prejudice on a number of occasions and circumstances. Even though in their narrative of survival they talked about activating several psychosocial resources, they were sceptical about their professional development and dissatisfied at work. The paper discusses the emerging findings while highlighting the framework’s relevance for understanding these experiences from an empowering acculturation perspective and suggesting ways of improving migrant social workers’ acculturative integration by addressing systemic barriers