Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

The benefit of adding a physiotherapy or occupational therapy intervention programme to a standardized group-based interdisciplinary rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic widespread pain: a randomized active-controlled non-blinded trial

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Adaptive Trial Designs in Rheumatology: Report from the OMERACT Special Interest Group

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. OMERACT Development of a Core Domain Set of Outcomes for Shared Decision-making Interventions

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Core Outcome Sets Specifically for Longterm Observational Studies: OMERACT Special Interest Group Update in Rheumatoid Arthritis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of adding occupational therapy or physiotherapy interventions to a standard rehabilitation programme targeted for chronic widespread pain.

DESIGN: Randomized active-controlled non-blinded trial.

SUBJECTS: Women with chronic widespread pain recruited in a tertiary outpatient clinic.

METHODS: Participants were randomized to a two-week, group-based standard rehabilitation programme followed by 16 weeks of group-based occupational therapy (Group BOT, n = 43) or 16 weeks of group-based physiotherapy (Group BPT, n = 42). Group A only received the two-week rehabilitation programme acting as comparator (n = 96).

OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills and Short Form-36 (SF36) Mental Component Summary score.

RESULTS: Mean changes in motor and process ability measures were clinically and statistically insignificant and without differences across the three groups assessed 88 weeks from baseline. Motor ability measures: -0.006 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.244 to 0.233) in Group BOT; -0.045 (95% CI: -0.291 to 0.202) in Group BPT; and -0.017 (95% CI: -0.248 to 0.213) in Group A, P = 0.903. Process ability measures: 0.087 (95% CI: -0.056 to 0.231) in Group BOT; 0.075 (95% CI: -0.075 to 0.226) in Group BPT; and 0.072 (95% CI: -0.067 to 0.211) in Group A, P = 0.924. Mean changes in patient-reported outcomes were likewise small; clinically and statistically insignificant; and independent of group allocation, except for the SF36 mental component summary score in the BPT group: 8.58 (95% CI: 1.75 to 15.41).

CONCLUSION: Participants were on average stable in observation-based measures of functional ability and patient-reported outcomes, except in overall mental well-being, favouring the enhanced intervention. Efficacy of additional interventions on functional ability remains uncertain.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftClinical Rehabilitation
Vol/bind33
Udgave nummer8
Sider (fra-til)1367-1381
Antal sider15
ISSN0269-2155
DOI
StatusUdgivet - aug. 2019

ID: 57855657