Supporting community-based exercise in long-term neurological conditions: experience from the Long-term Individual Fitness Enablement (LIFE) project

BACKGROUND: Patients with long-term neurological conditions often have low levels of physical activity and participation in exercise. Exercise referral schemes have been introduced in the UK to encourage physical activity in sedentary and clinical populations but typically exclude patients with long-term neurological conditions. We have developed and evaluated an exercise support system for people with long-term neurological disability, called the Physical Activity Support System, to enable them to use local gym facilities safely and effectively. The intervention: We describe the Physical Activity Support System for people with long-term neurological conditions and provide data on the use of this system in a phase II randomized controlled study trial. The system has five key components: access and transport advice, the fitness instructor, the gym, health professional support and how to exercise safely. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients with a range of long-term neurological conditions used six different community exercise facilities in Oxfordshire and Birmingham. Average gym attendance was one session per week for 12 weeks. Participants required an average of three 1-hour face-to-face physiotherapy contacts to achieve this. The average direct cost for the support system was £275. CONCLUSIONS: The scheme achieved comparable exercise participation to standard GP exercise referral schemes operating in the same centres and offers a relatively cheap, practical and feasible system for supporting people with long-term neurological conditions

Effects of a physiotherapy and occupational therapy intervention on mobility and activity in care home residents: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of a programme of physiotherapy and occupational therapy with standard care in care home residents who have mobility limitations and are dependent in performing activities of daily living

Speech and language therapy versus placebo or no intervention for speech problems in Parkinson's disease

Parkinson's disease patients commonly suffer from speech and vocal problems including dysarthric speech, reduced loudness and loss of articulation. These symptoms increase in frequency and intensity with progression of the disease). Speech and language therapy (SLT) aims to improve the intelligibility of speech with behavioural treatment techniques or instrumental aids

Recruitment challenges in stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials: a qualitative exploration of trialists’ perspectives using Framework analysis

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This research was part of a Glasgow Caledonian University funded studentship PhD based at, the Nursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit. The NMAHP RU and MCB are funded by the Chief Science Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate. The views expressed here are that of the authors and not necessarily the funders.Peer reviewedPostprin

Lee Silverman voice treatment versus standard NHS speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease (PD COMM pilot):study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Parkinson’s disease is a common movement disorder affecting approximately 127,000 people in the UK, with an estimated two thirds having speech-related problems. Currently there is no preferred approach to speech and language therapy within the NHS and there is little evidence for the effectiveness of standard NHS therapy or Lee Silverman voice treatment. This trial aims to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of randomizing people with Parkinson’s disease-related speech or voice problems to Lee Silverman voice treatment or standard speech and language therapy compared to a no-intervention control. Methods/Design: The PD COMM pilot is a three arm, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Randomization will be computer-generated with participants randomized at a ratio of 1:1:1. Participants randomized to intervention arms will be immediately referred to the appropriate speech and language therapist. The target population are patients with a confirmed diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease who have problems with their speech or voice. The Lee Silverman voice treatment intervention group will receive the standard regime of 16 sessions between 50 and 60 minutes in length over four weeks, with extra home practice. The standard speech and language therapy intervention group will receive a dose determined by patients’ individual needs, but not exceeding eight weeks of treatment. The control group will receive standard care with no speech and language therapy input for at least six months post-randomization. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomization) and post- randomization at three, six, and 12 months. The outcome measures include patient-reported voice measures, quality of life, resource use, and assessor-rated speech recordings. The recruitment aim is at least 60 participants over 21 months from 11 sites, equating to at least 20 participants in each arm of the trial. This trial is ongoing and recruitment commenced in May 2012. Discussion: This study will provide information on the feasibility and acceptability of randomizing participants to different speech and language therapies or control/deferred treatment. The findings relating to recruitment, treatment compliance, outcome measures, and effect size will inform a future phase III randomized controlled trial

UK survey of occupational therapist’s and physiotherapist’s experiences and attitudes towards hip replacement precautions and equipment

Background: Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common orthopaedic procedures in the United Kingdom (UK). Historically, people following THR have been provided with hip precautions and equipment such as: raised toilet seats and furniture rises, in order to reduce the risks of dislocation post-operation. The purpose of this study was to determine current practices in the provision of these interventions in the UK for people following primary THR. Methods: A 27-question, self-administered online survey was developed and distributed to UK physiotherapists and occupational therapists involved in the management of people following primary THR (target respondents). The survey included questions regarding the current practices in the provision of equipment and hip precautions for THR patients, and physiotherapist’s and occupational therapist’s attitudes towards these practices. The survey was disseminated through print and web-based/social media channels. Results: 170 health professionals (87 physiotherapists and 83 occupational therapists), responded to the survey. Commonly prescribed equipment in respondent’s health trusts were raised toilet seats (95%), toilet frames and rails (88%), furniture raises (79%), helping hands/grabbers (77%), perching stools (75%) and long-handled shoe horns (75%). Hip precautions were routinely prescribed by 97% of respondents. Hip precautions were most frequently taught in a pre-operative group (52% of respondents). Similarly equipment was most frequently provided pre-operatively (61% respondents), and most commonly by occupational therapists (74% respondents). There was variability in the advice provided on the duration of hip precautions and equipment from up to six weeks post-operatively to life-time usage. Conclusions: Current practice on hip precautions and provision of equipment is not full representative of clinician’s perceptions of best care after THR. Future research is warranted to determine whether and to whom hip precautions and equipment should be prescribed post-THR as opposed to the current ‘blanket’ provision of equipment and movement restriction provided in UK practice

The PD COMM trial: A protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial assessing the effectiveness of two types of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND: The PD COMM trial is a phase III multi-centre randomised controlled trial whose aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two approaches to speech and language therapy (SLT) compared with no SLT intervention (control) for people with Parkinson's disease who have self-reported or carer-reported problems with their speech or voice. Our protocol describes the process evaluation embedded within the outcome evaluation whose aim is to evaluate what happened at the time of the PD COMM intervention implementation and to provide findings that will assist in the interpretation of the PD COMM trial results. Furthermore, the aim of the PD COMM process evaluation is to investigate intervention complexity within a theoretical model of how the trialled interventions might work best and why. METHODS/DESIGN: Drawing from the Normalization Process Theory and frameworks for implementation fidelity, a mixed method design will be used to address process evaluation research questions. Therapists' and participants' perceptions and experiences will be investigated via in-depth interviews. Critical incident reports, baseline survey data from therapists, treatment record forms and home practice diaries also will be collected at relevant time points throughout the running of the PD COMM trial. Process evaluation data will be analysed independently of the outcome evaluation before the two sets of data are then combined. DISCUSSION: To date, there are a limited number of published process evaluation protocols, and few are linked to trials investigating rehabilitation therapies. Providing a strong theoretical framework underpinning design choices and being tailored to meet the complex characteristics of the trialled interventions, our process evaluation has the potential to provide valuable insight into which components of the interventions being delivered in PD COMM worked best (and what did not), how they worked well and why

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial

Additional file 1: Table S1. Speech and language therapy (SLT) set-up costs. Table S2. Derivation of unit costs: sources and assumptions. Table S3. Resource use per patient over 12 months (NHS and social care funded). Table S4. Mean medication costs by drug type over 12 months, per patient (2014/15 costs). Table S5. Resource use per patient over 12 months (privately funded). Table S6. Patient funded care costs and out of pocket expenses over 12 months, per patient. Table S7. Convergence between index scores of EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-O dimensions (Spearman’s rank correlation). Table S8. Convergence between index scores of PDQ39 dimensions and ICECAP-O responses (Spearman’s rank correlation). Table S9. Convergence between index scores of PDQ39 dimensions and EQ-5D-3L responses (Spearman’s rank correlation