Search

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization physical activity guidelines for people living with disability do not consider the needs of people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. This paper describes the qualitative co-development of a discrete choice experiment survey to inform the adaption of these guidelines by identifying the physical activity preferences of people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury in Australia. METHODS: The research team comprised researchers, people with lived experience of traumatic brain injury and health professionals with expertise in traumatic brain injury. We followed a four-stage process: (1) identification of key constructs and initial expression of attributes, (2) critique and refinement of attributes, (3) prioritisation of attributes and refinement of levels and (4) testing and refining language, format and comprehensibility. Data collection included deliberative dialogue, focus groups and think-aloud interviews with 22 purposively sampled people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. Strategies were used to support inclusive participation. Analysis employed qualitative description and framework methods. RESULTS: This formative process resulted in discarding, merging, renaming and reconceptualising attributes and levels. Attributes were reduced from an initial list of 17 to six: (1) Type of activity, (2) Out-of-pocket cost, (3) Travel time, (4) Who with, (5) Facilitated by and (6) Accessibility of setting. Confusing terminology and cumbersome features of the survey instrument were also revised. Challenges included purposive recruitment, reducing diverse stakeholder views to a few attributes, finding the right language and navigating the complexity of discrete choice experiment scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This formative co-development process significantly improved the relevance and comprehensibility of the discrete choice experiment survey tool. This process may be applic

BACKGROUND: In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the first global physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines for children and adults living with disability. The evidence informing the guidelines though is not specific to people living with traumatic brain injury (TBI), but rather comes from other disabling conditions such as Parkinson's disease, and stroke. There remains a clear lack of direct evidence of the effects of physical activity for people living with TBI. The objective of this rapid review was to identify direct evidence of the effect of physical activity on health outcomes in people with moderate-to-severe TBI to inform adaptation of the WHO physical activity guidelines into clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, including people of any age with moderate-to-severe TBI, investigating physical activity interventions compared to either usual care, a physical activity intervention with different parameters, or a non-physical activity intervention. Four databases (CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, Ovid MEDLINE) were searched from inception to October 8, 2021. The primary outcomes were physical function, cognition, and quality of life. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included incorporating 812 participants (36% females, majority working-age adults, time post-TBI in studies ranged from 56 days (median) to 16.6 years (mean)). A range of physical activity interventions were evaluated in rehabilitation (n = 12 studies), community (n = 8) and home (n = 3) settings. We pooled data from the end of the intervention for eight outcomes. Participation in a virtual reality physical activity intervention improved mobility, assessed by the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (range 0 to 96; higher score indicates better mobility) more than standard balance training (two studies, 80 participants, Mean Difference = 2.78, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.16; low certainty eviden

BACKGROUND: There is currently little evidence of planning for real-world implementation of physical activity interventions. We are undertaking the ComeBACK (Coaching and Exercise for Better Walking) study, a 3-arm hybrid Type 1 randomised controlled trial evaluating a health coaching intervention and a text messaging intervention. We used an implementation planning framework, the PRACTical planning for Implementation and Scale-up (PRACTIS), to guide the process evaluation for the trial. The aim of this paper is to describe the protocol for the process evaluation of the ComeBACK trial using the framework of the PRACTIS guide. METHODS: A mixed methods process evaluation protocol was developed informed by the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on process evaluations for complex interventions and the PRACTIS guide. Quantitative data, including participant questionnaires, health coach and administrative logbooks, and website and text message usage data, is being collected over the trial period. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with trial participants, health coaches and health service stakeholders will explore expectations, factors influencing the delivery of the ComeBACK interventions and potential scalability within existing health services. These data will be mapped against the steps of the PRACTIS guide, with reporting at the level of the individual, provider, organisational and community/systems. Quantitative and qualitative data will elicit potential contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation and scale-up. Quantitative data will be reported descriptively, and qualitative data analysed thematically. DISCUSSION: This process evaluation integrates an evaluation of prospective implementation and scale-up. It is envisaged this will inform barriers and enablers to future delivery, implementation and scale-up of physical activity interventions. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to describe the application of PRACTIS to guide the proces

QUESTIONS: In people recovering from traumatic brain injury, is a 3-month ballistic resistance training program targeting three lower limb muscle groups more effective than non-ballistic exercise rehabilitation for improving mobility, strength and balance? Does improved mobility translate to better health-related quality of life? DESIGN: A prospective, multicentre, randomised trial with concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded measurement. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 144 people with a neurological movement disorder affecting mobility as a result of traumatic brain injury. INTERVENTION: For 3 months, the experimental group had three 60-minute sessions of non-ballistic exercise rehabilitation per week replaced by ballistic resistance training. The control group had non-ballistic exercise rehabilitation of equivalent time. The non-ballistic exercise rehabilitation consisted of balance exercises, lower limb stretching, conventional strengthening exercises, cardiovascular fitness training and gait training. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mobility measured using the High-Level Mobility Assessment Tool (HiMAT). Secondary outcomes were walking speed, strength, balance and quality of life. They were measured at baseline (0 months), after completion of the 3-month intervention (3 months) and 3 months after cessation of intervention (6 months). RESULTS: After 3 months of ballistic resistance training, the experimental group scored 3 points (95% CI 0 to 6) higher on the 54-point HiMAT than the control group and remained 3 points (95% CI -1 to 6) higher at 6 months. Although there was a transient decrement in balance at 3 months in the experimental group, the interventions had similar effects on all secondary outcomes by 6 months. Participants with a baseline HiMAT < 27 gained greater benefit from ballistic training: 6 points (1 to 10) on the HiMAT. CONCLUSION: This randomised trial shows that ballistic resistance training has a similar or better eff

Physical activity counselling has demonstrated effectiveness at increasing physical activity when delivered in healthcare, but is not routinely practised. This study aimed to determine (1) current use of physical activity counselling by physiotherapists working within publicly funded hospitals; and (2) influences on this behaviour. A cross-sectional survey of physiotherapists was conducted across five hospitals within a local health district in Sydney, Australia. The survey investigated physiotherapists' frequency of incorporating 15 different elements of physical activity counselling into their usual healthcare interactions, and 53 potential influences on their behaviour framed by the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour) model. The sample comprised 84 physiotherapists (79% female, 48% <5 years of experience). Physiotherapists reported using on average five (SD:3) elements of physical activity counselling with at least 50% of their patients who could be more active. A total of 70% of physiotherapists raised or discussed overall physical activity, but less than 10% measured physical activity or contacted community physical activity providers. Physiotherapists reported on average 25 (SD:9) barriers influencing their use of physical activity counselling. The most common barriers were related to "opportunity", with 57% indicating difficulty locating suitable community physical activity opportunities and >90% indicating their patients lacked financial and transport opportunities. These findings confirm that physical activity counselling is not routinely incorporated in physiotherapy practice and help to identify implementation strategies to build clinicians' opportunities and capabilities to deliver physical activity counselling.

INTRODUCTION: Mobility limitation is common and often results from neurological and musculoskeletal health conditions, ageing and/or physical inactivity. In consultation with consumers, clinicians and policymakers, we have developed two affordable and scalable intervention packages designed to enhance physical activity for adults with self-reported mobility limitations. Both are based on behaviour change theories and involve tailored advice from physiotherapists. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pragmatic hybrid effectiveness-implementation type 1 randomised control trial (n=600) will be undertaken among adults with self-reported mobility limitations. It aims to estimate the effects on physical activity of: (1) an enhanced 6-month intervention package (one face-to-face physiotherapy assessment, tailored physical activity plan, physical activity phone coaching from a physiotherapist, informational/motivational resources and activity monitors) compared with a less intensive 6-month intervention package (single session of tailored phone advice from a physiotherapist, tailored physical activity plan, unidirectional text messages, informational/motivational resources); (2) the enhanced intervention package compared with no intervention (6-month waiting list control group); and (3) the less intensive intervention package compared with no intervention (waiting list control group). The primary outcome will be average steps per day, measured with the StepWatch Activity Monitor over a 1-week period, 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include other physical activity measures, measures of health and functioning, individualised mobility goal attainment, mental well-being, quality of life, rate of falls, health utilisation and intervention evaluation. The hybrid effectiveness-implementation design (type 1) will be used to enable the collection of secondary implementation outcomes at the same time as the primary effectiveness outcome. An economic analysis will estimate the

BACKGROUND: Physical activity has many physical and mental health benefits and can delay the development of disability in older age. However, uptake of this health behaviour is sub-optimal in women in their middle and older age. This trial aims to establish the acceptability and feasibility of the Active Women over 50 programme involving online information, telephone health coaching and email or SMS support to promote physical activity behaviour change among women aged 50 years and over. METHODS: Sixty community-dwelling women who are insufficiently active according to national guidelines, will be recruited and randomised to 1) receive the Active Women over 50 programme or 2) a wait-list control. Active Women over 50 is a 3-month physical activity programme guided by behaviour change science, providing access to a website, one telephone-delivered health coaching session from a physiotherapist and 8 email or 24 SMS messages. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants at 3 months post-randomisation who would recommend participation in the programme to another person like themselves. Secondary outcomes are feasibility measures: rates of recruitment, retention, completeness of outcome data and uptake of telephone support; and intervention impact measures: accelerometer-assessed average steps/day, proportion of participants meeting national guidelines on moderate to vigorous physical activity; and questionnaire-assessed quality of life, exercise perceptions, mood, physical functioning and self-reported physical activity. Intervention participants will also complete a follow-up survey to assess impressions of the intervention and adoption of strategies for physical activity participation. Data will be analysed descriptively to guide the design of a larger trial. Between-group differences in secondary outcomes will be used to estimate effect sizes for sample size calculations for a fully powered randomised controlled trial. DISCUSSION: This feasibility pilot tri

Introduction People with mobility limitations can benefit from rehabilitation programmes that provide a high dose of exercise. However, since providing a high dose of exercise is logistically challenging and resource-intensive, people in rehabilitation spend most of the day inactive. This trial aims to evaluate the effect of the addition of affordable technology to usual care on physical activity and mobility in people with mobility limitations admitted to inpatient aged and neurological rehabilitation units compared to usual care alone. Methods and analysis A pragmatic, assessor blinded, parallel-group randomised trial recruiting 300 consenting rehabilitation patients with reduced mobility will be conducted. Participants will be individually randomised to intervention or control groups. The intervention group will receive technology-based exercise to target mobility and physical activity problems for 6 months. The technology will include the use of video and computer games/exercises and tablet applications as well as activity monitors. The control group will not receive any additional intervention and both groups will receive usual inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation care over the 6-month study period. The coprimary outcomes will be objectively assessed physical activity (proportion of the day spent upright) and mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery) at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include: self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity, mobility, cognition, activity performance and participation, utility-based quality of life, balance confidence, technology self-efficacy, falls and service utilisation. Linear models will assess the effect of group allocation for each continuously scored outcome measure with baseline scores entered as a covariate. Fall rates between groups will be compared using negative binomial regression. Primary analyses will be preplanned, conducted while masked to group allocation and use an inten

© Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. Introduction People with mobility limitations can benefit from rehabilitation programmes that provide a high dose of exercise. However, since providing a high dose of exercise is logistically challenging and resource-intensive, people in rehabilitation spend most of the day inactive. This trial aims to evaluate the effect of the addition of affordable technology to usual care on physical activity and mobility in people with mobility limitations admitted to inpatient aged and neurological rehabilitation units compared to usual care alone. Methods and analysis A pragmatic, assessor blinded, parallel-group randomised trial recruiting 300 consenting rehabilitation patients with reduced mobility will be conducted. Participants will be individually randomised to intervention or control groups. The intervention group will receive technology-based exercise to target mobility and physical activity problems for 6 months. The technology will include the use of video and computer games/exercises and tablet applications as well as activity monitors. The control group will not receive any additional intervention and both groups will receive usual inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation care over the 6-month study period. The coprimary outcomes will be objectively assessed physical activity (proportion of the day spent upright) and mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery) at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include: self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity, mobility, cognition, activity performance and participation, utility-based quality of life, balance confidence, technology self-efficacy, falls and service utilisation. Linear models will assess the effect of group allocation for each continuously scored outcome measure with baseline scores entered as a covariate. Fall rates between groups will be compared using negative binomial regression. Primary analyses will be preplanned, conducted

© Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. Introduction People with mobility limitations can benefit from rehabilitation programmes that provide a high dose of exercise. However, since providing a high dose of exercise is logistically challenging and resource-intensive, people in rehabilitation spend most of the day inactive. This trial aims to evaluate the effect of the addition of affordable technology to usual care on physical activity and mobility in people with mobility limitations admitted to inpatient aged and neurological rehabilitation units compared to usual care alone. Methods and analysis A pragmatic, assessor blinded, parallel-group randomised trial recruiting 300 consenting rehabilitation patients with reduced mobility will be conducted. Participants will be individually randomised to intervention or control groups. The intervention group will receive technology-based exercise to target mobility and physical activity problems for 6 months. The technology will include the use of video and computer games/exercises and tablet applications as well as activity monitors. The control group will not receive any additional intervention and both groups will receive usual inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation care over the 6-month study period. The coprimary outcomes will be objectively assessed physical activity (proportion of the day spent upright) and mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery) at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include: self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity, mobility, cognition, activity performance and participation, utility-based quality of life, balance confidence, technology self-efficacy, falls and service utilisation. Linear models will assess the effect of group allocation for each continuously scored outcome measure with baseline scores entered as a covariate. Fall rates between groups will be compared using negative binomial regression. Primary analyses will be preplanned, conducted

© 2015. Question: Does adding video/computer-based interactive exercises to inpatient geriatric and neurological rehabilitation improve mobility outcomes? Is it feasible and safe? Design: Randomised trial. Participants: Fifty-eight rehabilitation inpatients. Intervention: Physiotherapist-prescribed, tailored, video/computer-based interactive exercises for 1 hour on weekdays, mainly involving stepping and weight-shifting exercises. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Short Physical Performance Battery (0 to 3) at 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes were: Maximal Balance Range (mm); Step Test (step count); Rivermead Mobility Index (0 to 15); activity levels; Activity Measure for Post Acute Care Basic Mobility (18 to 72) and Daily Activity (15 to 60); Falls Efficacy Scale (10 to 40), ED5D utility score (0 to 1); Reintegration to Normal Living Index (0 to 100); System Usability Scale (0 to 100) and Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (0 to 126). Safety was determined from adverse events during intervention. Results: At 2 weeks the between-group difference in the primary outcome (0.1, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.3) was not statistically significant. The intervention group performed significantly better than usual care for Maximal Balance Range (38. mm difference after baseline adjustment, 95% CI 6 to 69). Other secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. Fifty-eight (55%) of the eligible patients agreed to participate, 25/29 (86%) completed the intervention and 10 (39%) attended > 70% of sessions, with a mean of 5.6 sessions (SD 3.3) attended and overall average duration of 4.5. hours (SD 3.1). Average scores were 62 (SD 21) for the System Usability Scale and 62 (SD 8) for the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale. There were no adverse events. Conclusion: The addition of video/computer-based interactive exercises to usual rehabilitation is a safe and feasible way to increase exercise dose, but is not suitable for all. Adding the exercises to usual rehabilitation resulted in

© 2015. Question: Does adding video/computer-based interactive exercises to inpatient geriatric and neurological rehabilitation improve mobility outcomes? Is it feasible and safe? Design: Randomised trial. Participants: Fifty-eight rehabilitation inpatients. Intervention: Physiotherapist-prescribed, tailored, video/computer-based interactive exercises for 1 hour on weekdays, mainly involving stepping and weight-shifting exercises. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Short Physical Performance Battery (0 to 3) at 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes were: Maximal Balance Range (mm); Step Test (step count); Rivermead Mobility Index (0 to 15); activity levels; Activity Measure for Post Acute Care Basic Mobility (18 to 72) and Daily Activity (15 to 60); Falls Efficacy Scale (10 to 40), ED5D utility score (0 to 1); Reintegration to Normal Living Index (0 to 100); System Usability Scale (0 to 100) and Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (0 to 126). Safety was determined from adverse events during intervention. Results: At 2 weeks the between-group difference in the primary outcome (0.1, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.3) was not statistically significant. The intervention group performed significantly better than usual care for Maximal Balance Range (38. mm difference after baseline adjustment, 95% CI 6 to 69). Other secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. Fifty-eight (55%) of the eligible patients agreed to participate, 25/29 (86%) completed the intervention and 10 (39%) attended > 70% of sessions, with a mean of 5.6 sessions (SD 3.3) attended and overall average duration of 4.5. hours (SD 3.1). Average scores were 62 (SD 21) for the System Usability Scale and 62 (SD 8) for the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale. There were no adverse events. Conclusion: The addition of video/computer-based interactive exercises to usual rehabilitation is a safe and feasible way to increase exercise dose, but is not suitable for all. Adding the exercises to usual rehabilitation resulted in