Ankle proprioception is not targeted by exercises on an unstable surface

Item does not contain fulltextLaboratory study using a repeated measures design. The aim of this study was to determine if ankle proprioception is targeted in exercises on unstable surfaces. Lateral ankle sprain (LAS) has recurrence rates over 70%, which are believed to be due to a reduced accuracy of proprioceptive signals from the ankle. Proprioceptive exercises in rehabilitation of LAS mostly consist of balancing activities on an unstable surface. The methods include 100 healthy adults stood barefoot on a solid surface and a foam pad over a force plate, with occluded vision. Mechanical vibration was used to stimulate proprioceptive output of muscle spindles of triceps surae and lumbar paraspinal musculature. Each trial lasted for 60 s; vibration was applied from the 15th till the 30th second. Changes in mean velocity and mean position of the center of pressure (CoP) as a result of muscle vibration were calculated. Results show that on foam, the effect of triceps surae vibration on mean CoP velocity was significantly smaller than on a solid surface, while for paraspinal musculature vibration the effect was bigger on foam than on solid surface. Similar effects were seen for mean CoP displacement as outcome. Exercises on unstable surfaces appear not to target peripheral ankle proprioception. Exercises on an unstable surface may challenge the capacity of the central nervous system to shift the weighting of sources of proprioceptive signals on balance

Comparison of governance approaches for the control of antimicrobial resistance: Analysis of three European countries

Policy makers and governments are calling for coordination to address the crisis emerging from the ineffectiveness of current antibiotics and stagnated pipe-line of new ones – antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Wider contextual drivers and mechanisms are contributing to shifts in governance strategies in health care, but are national health system approaches aligned with strategies required to tackle antimicrobial resistance? This article provides an analysis of governance approaches within healthcare systems including: priority setting, performance monitoring and accountability for AMR prevention in three European countries: England, France and Germany. Advantages and unresolved issues from these different experiences are reported, concluding that mechanisms are needed to support partnerships between healthcare professionals and patients with democratized decision-making and accountability via collaboration. But along with this multi-stakeholder approach to governance, a balance between regulation and persuasion is needed

Routine provision of information on patient-reported outcome measures to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice

This is the final version. Available from Cochrane Collaboration via the DOI in this record.This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the impact of the routine use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice on the process of care (including patient-physician communication, professionals awareness of patients' quality of life, diagnosis and recognition rates, treatment rates, health services and resource use, as well as patient behaviour); patients' and professionals' experiences of care; and health outcomes (both generic and disease-specific, using both routinely-used clinical measures and PROs).Spanish Ministry of ScienceInnovation and the European commissionNational Institutes of Health Research (NIHR

Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of interventions has been developed to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>A review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the use of research in clinical practice. A search for relevant systematic reviews was conducted of Medline and the Cochrane Database of Reviews 1998-2009. 13 systematic reviews containing 313 primary studies were included. Four strategy types are identified: audit and feedback; computerised decision support; opinion leaders; and multifaceted interventions. Nine of the reviews reported on multifaceted interventions. This review highlights the small effects of single interventions such as audit and feedback, computerised decision support and opinion leaders. Systematic reviews of multifaceted interventions claim an improvement in effectiveness over single interventions, with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate. This review found that a number of published systematic reviews fail to state whether the recommended practice change is based on the best available research evidence.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This overview of systematic reviews updates the body of knowledge relating to the effectiveness of key mechanisms for improving clinical practice and service development. Multifaceted interventions are more likely to improve practice than single interventions such as audit and feedback. This review identified a small literature focusing explicitly on getting research evidence into clinical practice. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that primary studies and systematic reviews are precise about the extent to which the reported interventions focus on changing practice based on research evidence (as opposed to other information codified in guidelines and education materials).</p

Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice

Background Patient‐reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assess a patient’s subjective appraisal of health outcomes from their own perspective. Despite hypothesised benefits that feedback on PROMs can support decision‐making in clinical practice and improve outcomes, there is uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of PROMs feedback. Objectives To assess the effects of PROMs feedback to patients, or healthcare workers, or both on patient‐reported health outcomes and processes of care. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, two other databases and two clinical trial registries on 5 October 2020. We searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field. Selection criteria Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We included randomised trials directly comparing the effects on outcomes and processes of care of PROMs feedback to healthcare professionals and patients, or both with the impact of not providing such information. Data collection and analysis Two groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted meta‐analyses of the results where possible. Main results We identified 116 randomised trials which assessed the effectiveness of PROMs feedback in improving processes or outcomes of care, or both in a broad range of disciplines including psychiatry, primary care, and oncology. Studies were conducted across diverse ambulatory primary and secondary care settings in North America, Europe and Australasia. A total of 49,785 patients were included across all the studies. The certainty of the evidence varied between very low and moderate. Many of the studies included in the review were at risk of performance and detection bias. The evidence suggests moderate certainty that PROMs feedback probably improves quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.26; 11 studies; 2687 participants), and leads to an increase in patient‐physician communication (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52; 5 studies; 658 participants), diagnosis and notation (risk ratio (RR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.08; 21 studies; 7223 participants), and disease control (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41; 14 studies; 2806 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference for general health perceptions (SMD 0.04, 95% CI ‐0.17 to 0.24; 2 studies, 552 participants; low‐certainty evidence), social functioning (SMD 0.02, 95% CI ‐0.06 to 0.09; 15 studies; 2632 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), and pain (SMD 0.00, 95% CI ‐0.09 to 0.08; 9 studies; 2386 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of PROMs feedback on physical functioning (14 studies; 2788 participants) and mental functioning (34 studies; 7782 participants), as well as fatigue (4 studies; 741 participants), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. We did not find studies reporting on adverse effects defined as distress following or related to PROM completion. Authors' conclusions PROM feedback probably produces moderate improvements in communication between healthcare professionals and patients as well as in diagnosis and notation, and disease control, and small improvements to quality of life. Our confidence in the effects is limited by the risk of bias, heterogeneity and small number of trials conducted to assess outcomes of interest. It is unclear whether many of these improvements are clinically meaningful or sustainable in the long term. There is a need for more high‐quality studies in this area, particularly studies which employ cluster designs and utilise techniques to maintain allocation concealment

Comparing patient characteristics and treatment processes in patients receiving physical therapy in the United States, Israel and the Netherlands. Cross sectional analyses of data from three clinical databases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many assume that outcomes from physical therapy research in one country can be generalized to other countries. However, no well designed studies comparing outcomes among countries have been conducted. In this exploratory study, our goal was to compare patient demographics and treatment processes in outpatient physical therapy practice in the United States, Israel and the Netherlands.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional data from three different clinical databases were examined. Data were selected for patients aged 18 years and older and started an episode of outpatient therapy between January 1^st2005 and December 31^st2005. Results are based on data from approximately 63,000 patients from the United States, 100,000 from Israel and 12,000 from the Netherlands.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Age, gender and the body part treated were similar in the three countries. Differences existed in episode duration of the health problem, with more patients with chronic complaints treated in the United States and Israel compared to the Netherlands. In the United States and Israel, physical agents and mechanical modalities were applied more often than in the Netherlands. The mean number of visits per treatment episode, adjusted for age, gender, and episode duration, varied from 8 in Israel to 11 in the United States and the Netherlands.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The current study showed that clinical databases can be used for comparing patient demographic characteristics and for identifying similarities and differences among countries in physical therapy practice. However, terminology used to describe treatment processes and classify patients was different among databases. More standardisation is required to enable more detailed comparisons. Nevertheless the differences found in number of treatment visits per episode imply that one has to be careful to generalize outcomes from physical therapy research from one country to another.</p

Current use and barriers and facilitators for implementation of standardised measures in physical therapy in the Netherlands

In many countries, the need for physical therapists to use standardised measures has been recognised and is recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Research has shown a lack of clinimetric knowledge and clinical application of measurement instruments in daily practice may hamper implementation of these guidelines. The aims of this study are 1) to investigate the current use of measurement instruments by Dutch physical therapists; 2) to investigate the facilitators and barriers in using measurement instruments

The COPE LBP trial: Cognitive Patient Education for Low Back Pain - a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is usually self-limiting within 4-6 weeks. Longstanding pain and disability are not predictable from clinical signs or pathoanatomical findings. Pain cognition and physical performance have been shown to improve patients with chronic LBP following neurophysiological education. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate whether a specific cognitive based education programme for patients with LBP in primary care is more effective than normal care in terms of increased function. The secondary aims of the study are to evaluate whether this intervention also results in earlier return to work, decreased pain, increased patient satisfaction, increased quality-of-life, and cost utility.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Cluster randomised controlled trial with 20 general practitioners and 20 physiotherapists in primary care as the unit of randomisation. Each practitioner will recruit up to 10 patients, aged 20 to 55 years, with non-specific sub-acute/chronic LBP of more than four weeks but less than 1 year's duration. Practitioners in the intervention arm will provide cognitive patient education intervention in up to four weekly sessions, each lasting 30 minutes. Practitioners in the control arm will provide normal treatment, but have to make four appointments for the patients. Patients, outcome assessors, and study statistician will be blinded to group allocation.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We present the rationale and design of an ongoing RCT study that potentially offers an easily implemented treatment strategy for LBP patients in primary care. The results will be available in 2012.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN04323845</p

Effectiveness of joint mobilisation after cast immobilisation for ankle fracture: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial [ACTRN012605000143628]

BACKGROUND: Passive joint mobilisation is a technique frequently used by physiotherapists to reduce pain, improve joint movement and facilitate a return to activities after injury, but its use after ankle fracture is currently based on limited evidence. The primary aim of this trial is to determine if adding joint mobilisation to a standard exercise programme is effective and cost-effective after cast immobilisation for ankle fracture in adults. METHODS/DESIGN: Ninety participants will be recruited from the physiotherapy departments of three teaching hospitals and randomly allocated to treatment or control groups using a concealed procedure. All participants will perform an exercise programme. Participants in the treatment group will also receive joint mobilisation twice a week for four weeks. Blinded follow-up assessments will be conducted four, 12 and 24 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcome measures will be the Lower Extremity Functional Scale and the Assessment of Quality of Life. Secondary outcomes will include measures of impairments, activity limitation and participation. Data on the use of physiotherapy services and participants' out-of-pocket costs will be collected for the cost-effective and cost-utility analyses. To test the effects of treatment, between-group differences will be examined with analysis of covariance using a regression approach. The primary conclusions will be based on the four-week follow-up data. DISCUSSION: This trial incorporates features known to minimise bias. It uses a pragmatic design to reflect clinical practice and maximise generalisability. Results from this trial will contribute to an evidence-based approach for rehabilitation after ankle fracture