The effect of foot orthoses on patients with early diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

The Stepping Threshold Test for Reactive Balance : Validation of Two Observer-Based Evaluation Strategies to Assess Stepping Behavior in Fall-Prone Older Adults

Introduction: Measurement of reactive balance is critical for fall prevention but is severely underrepresented in the clinical setting due to the lack of valid assessments. The Stepping Threshold Test (STT) is a newly developed instrumented test for reactive balance on a movable platform, however, it has not yet been validated for fall-prone older adults. Furthermore, different schemes of observer-based evaluation seem possible. The aim of this study was to investigate validity with respect to fall risk, interpretability, and feasibility of the STT using two different evaluation strategies.Methods: This study involved 71 fall-prone older adults (aged ≥ 65) who underwent progressively increasing perturbations in four directions for the STT. Single and multiple-step thresholds for each perturbation direction were determined via two observer-based evaluation schemes, which are the 1) consideration of all steps (all-step-count evaluation, ACE) and 2) consideration of those steps that extend the base of support in the direction of perturbation (direction-sensitive evaluation, DSE). Established balance measures including global (Brief Balance Evaluations Systems Test, BriefBEST), proactive (Timed Up and Go, TUG), and static balance (8-level balance scale, 8LBS), as well as fear of falling (Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International, FES-I) and fall occurrence in the past year, served as reference measurements.Results: The sum scores of STT correlated moderately with the BriefBEST (ACE: r = 0.413; DSE: r = 0.388) and TUG (ACE: r = -0.379; DSE: r = -0.435) and low with the 8LBS (ACE: r = 0.173; DSE: r = 0.246) and Short FES-I (ACE: r = -0.108; DSE: r = -0.104). The sum scores did not distinguish between fallers and non-fallers. No floor/ceiling effects occurred for the STT sum score, but these effects occurred for specific STT thresholds for both ACE (mean floor effect = 13.04%, SD = 19.35%; mean ceiling effect = 4.29%, SD = 7.75%) and DSE (mean floor effect = 7.86%, SD = 15.23%; mean ceiling effect = 21.07%, SD = 26.08). No severe adverse events occurred.Discussion: Correlations between the STT and other balance tests were in the expected magnitude, indicating convergent validity. However, the STT could not distinguish between fallers and non-fallers, referring to a need for further studies and prospective surveys of falls to validate the STT. Current results did not allow a definitive judgment on the advantage of using ACE or DSE. Study results represented a step toward a reactive balance assessment application in a clinical setting.publishe

Reducing sick leave, improving work ability, and quality of life in patients with mild to moderate Long COVID through psychosocial, physiotherapeutic, and nutritive supportive digital intervention (MiLoCoDaS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background Following SARS-CoV-2 infection, a relevant proportion of patients suffer from persistent or recurring sequela, even after initially mild primary illness. Many patients experience exhaustion and fatigue, rendering them incapable of working. Long COVID exerts a substantial burden on society and the healthcare system: at least 65 million people are currently affected worldwide. The underlying pathobiology is a complex derangement in several organ systems. To date, causal pharmaceutical therapies remain elusive. Waiting lists for specialist care are long. Rapidly scalable digital interventions offering support for the frequent subgroup of patients with mild to moderate impairment from Long COVID are urgently needed. The MiLoCoDaS study compares three intensities of a potentially rapidly scalable digital intervention aiming to accelerate recovery. The overall objective is to figure out if there is a difference in the effect sizes between these modalities. Methods The online intervention uses a learning platform (LMS, TYPO3 framework) comprising 12 sessions of medical, psychological, physiotherapeutic, and nutritional content. The three modalities differ as follows: patient information only (sham intervention, control), information plus interactive digital workbook including practical exercises (digital intervention), and the digital workbook augmented by once-weekly online seminars and discussion groups (person and peer-contact). Eligible patients are 18–67 years old satisfying Long COVID diagnostic criteria. Patients are recruited through primary care physicians and randomly allocated. The primary endpoint is the number of sick leave days during the 6-month observation period; secondary endpoints are patient-reported symptoms, quality of life, and work ability. The study size provides a power of 80% at a type I error of < 0.05 to show an effect size of Cohen = 0.3 between the augmented and the sham intervention (N = 152 per arm, total accounting for attrition N = 600). Discussion If one of the two interventions is superior to providing information alone, MiLoCoDaS would provide the starting point for a rapidly scalable digital intervention for the frequent and currently underserved patient group with mild to moderate impairment from Long COVID. Several caveats pertain to the heterogeneity of Long COVID manifestation and duration prior to inclusion. It is conceivable that the possible effect of the intervention may differ across subgroups. Therefore, a priori defined secondary analysis will be conducted. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) DRKS00028964. Registered on 24 August 2022