Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Internet and Telerehabilitation-Delivered Management of Rotator Cuff–Related Shoulder Pain (INTEL Trial): Randomized Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Rotator cuff–related shoulder pain (RCRSP) is a common and disabling musculoskeletal condition. Internet-based and telerehabilitation delivery of recommended care may improve access to care and improve adherence and outcomes.

          Objective

          The primary aim of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to assess the feasibility of a 12-week internet-delivered intervention for RCRSP comparing advice only, recommended care, and recommended care with group-based telerehabilitation.

          Methods

          Reporting was in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist for pilot and feasibility trials. People with a primary complaint of RCRSP for 3 months or longer were identified via a paid Facebook strategy. Screening involved an online questionnaire followed by a 20-minute telehealth assessment. Participants were randomly allocated (via a Zelen design) to receive (1) advice only, (2) recommended care (internet-delivered evidence-based exercise and education), or (3) recommended care and telerehabilitation (including a weekly group teleconference session). Progression criteria for a full-scale trial included (1) recruitment of 20% or greater of eligible participants, (2) acceptable adherence (two or more of the three prescribed weekly sessions) among 70% or greater of participants, (3) 80% or greater retention of participants, (4) absence of intervention-related serious adverse events, and (5) 80% or greater response rates to questionnaires. Secondary clinical and patient knowledge outcomes were collected (via email or text) at baseline, six weeks, and 12 weeks (for clinical and patient knowledge), and within-group change was reported descriptively.

          Results

          We enrolled 36 of 38 (95%) eligible participants and all participants were recruited within a 3-week period. Of the 36 participants, 12 participants were allocated to each of the three trial arms. The mean age of participants was between 51 and 56 years, and 83% (10/12) to 92% (11/12) were female. Retention at the 12-week endpoint was 94% (34/36) and response to email questionnaires at other time points was 83% or greater. We found acceptable adherence (defined as greater than 70% of participants performing exercise 2 or 3 times/week) in the recommended care group with telerehabilitation but not in the recommended care group without telerehabilitation. There was a total of 24 adverse events over 108 person-months of observation. All adverse events were mild or moderate (mainly muscle and shoulder symptoms), with the exception of one instance of elective surgery (unrelated to the person’s shoulder condition).

          Conclusions

          Our prespecified success criteria were met or exceeded, but there was a gender imbalance toward women. It is feasible to progress to a fully powered trial, but strategies to address the gender imbalance need to be implemented.

          Trial Registration

          Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000248965); https://tinyurl.com/yy6eztf5

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials

            The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a guideline designed to improve the transparency and quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this article we present an extension to that statement for randomised pilot and feasibility trials conducted in advance of a future definitive RCT. The checklist applies to any randomised study in which a future definitive RCT, or part of it, is conducted on a smaller scale, regardless of its design (eg, cluster, factorial, crossover) or the terms used by authors to describe the study (eg, pilot, feasibility, trial, study). The extension does not directly apply to internal pilot studies built into the design of a main trial, non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies, or phase II studies, but these studies all have some similarities to randomised pilot and feasibility studies and so many of the principles might also apply. The development of the extension was motivated by the growing number of studies described as feasibility or pilot studies and by research that has identified weaknesses in their reporting and conduct. We followed recommended good practice to develop the extension, including carrying out a Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting and research team meetings, and piloting the checklist. The aims and objectives of pilot and feasibility randomised studies differ from those of other randomised trials. Consequently, although much of the information to be reported in these trials is similar to those in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effectiveness and efficacy, there are some key differences in the type of information and in the appropriate interpretation of standard CONSORT reporting items. We have retained some of the original CONSORT statement items, but most have been adapted, some removed, and new items added. The new items cover how participants were identified and consent obtained; if applicable, the prespecified criteria used to judge whether or how to proceed with a future definitive RCT; if relevant, other important unintended consequences; implications for progression from pilot to future definitive RCT, including any proposed amendments; and ethical approval or approval by a research review committee confirmed with a reference number. This article includes the 26 item checklist, a separate checklist for the abstract, a template for a CONSORT flowchart for these studies, and an explanation of the changes made and supporting examples. We believe that routine use of this proposed extension to the CONSORT statement will result in improvements in the reporting of pilot trials. Editor’s note: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal websites.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Persuasive System Design Does Matter: A Systematic Review of Adherence to Web-Based Interventions

              Background Although web-based interventions for promoting health and health-related behavior can be effective, poor adherence is a common issue that needs to be addressed. Technology as a means to communicate the content in web-based interventions has been neglected in research. Indeed, technology is often seen as a black-box, a mere tool that has no effect or value and serves only as a vehicle to deliver intervention content. In this paper we examine technology from a holistic perspective. We see it as a vital and inseparable aspect of web-based interventions to help explain and understand adherence. Objective This study aims to review the literature on web-based health interventions to investigate whether intervention characteristics and persuasive design affect adherence to a web-based intervention. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies into web-based health interventions. Per intervention, intervention characteristics, persuasive technology elements and adherence were coded. We performed a multiple regression analysis to investigate whether these variables could predict adherence. Results We included 101 articles on 83 interventions. The typical web-based intervention is meant to be used once a week, is modular in set-up, is updated once a week, lasts for 10 weeks, includes interaction with the system and a counselor and peers on the web, includes some persuasive technology elements, and about 50% of the participants adhere to the intervention. Regarding persuasive technology, we see that primary task support elements are most commonly employed (mean 2.9 out of a possible 7.0). Dialogue support and social support are less commonly employed (mean 1.5 and 1.2 out of a possible 7.0, respectively). When comparing the interventions of the different health care areas, we find significant differences in intended usage (p = .004), setup (p < .001), updates (p < .001), frequency of interaction with a counselor (p < .001), the system (p = .003) and peers (p = .017), duration (F = 6.068, p = .004), adherence (F = 4.833, p = .010) and the number of primary task support elements (F = 5.631, p = .005). Our final regression model explained 55% of the variance in adherence. In this model, a RCT study as opposed to an observational study, increased interaction with a counselor, more frequent intended usage, more frequent updates and more extensive employment of dialogue support significantly predicted better adherence. Conclusions Using intervention characteristics and persuasive technology elements, a substantial amount of variance in adherence can be explained. Although there are differences between health care areas on intervention characteristics, health care area per se does not predict adherence. Rather, the differences in technology and interaction predict adherence. The results of this study can be used to make an informed decision about how to design a web-based intervention to which patients are more likely to adhere.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMU
                JMIR mHealth and uHealth
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2291-5222
                November 2020
                18 November 2020
                : 8
                : 11
                : e24311
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Physiotherapy Department, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Science Monash University Melbourne Australia
                [2 ] Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care Manchester Metropolitan University Manchester United Kingdom
                [3 ] Barwon Orthopaedic Research and Education, Barwon Health and School of Medicine Deakin University Geelong Australia
                [4 ] Whitlam Orthopaedic Research Centre, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research Sydney Australia
                [5 ] South Western Sydney Clinical School University of New South Wales Sydney Australia
                [6 ] Liverpool Hospital Sydney Australia
                [7 ] Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Australia
                [8 ] School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Science Monash University Melbourne Australia
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Peter Malliaras peter.malliaras@ 123456monash.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5879-4139
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2303-7565
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6015-6715
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4643-6996
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7703-727X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2225-7144
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0887-7627
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9959-5750
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3150-6154
                Article
                v8i11e24311
                10.2196/24311
                7710452
                33206059
                92869bd1-faa6-4278-85ee-85bee002ad94
                ©Peter Malliaras, Kate Cridland, Ruben Hopmans, Simon Ashton, Chris Littlewood, Richard Page, Ian Harris, Helen Skouteris, Terry Haines. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 18.11.2020.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 15 September 2020
                : 6 October 2020
                : 14 October 2020
                : 21 October 2020
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                rotator cuff,tendinopathy,shoulder,telemedicine,telerehabilitation,randomized controlled trial,pilot,feasibility,pain,internet-delivered intervention

                Comments

                Comment on this article