Lower extremity (LE) amputation patients who use prostheses have gait asymmetries and altered limb loading and movement strategies when ambulating. Subsequent secondary conditions are believed to be associated with gait deviations and lead to long-term complications that impact function and quality of life as a result. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to determine the strength of evidence supporting gait training interventions and to formulate evidence statements to guide practice and research related to therapeutic gait training for lower extremity amputees. A systematic review of three databases was conducted followed by evaluation of evidence and synthesis of empirical evidence statements (EES). Eighteen manuscripts were included in the review, which covered two areas of gait training interventions: 1) overground and 2) treadmill-based. Eight EESs were synthesized. Four addressed overground gait training, one covered treadmill training, and three statements addressed both forms of therapy. Due to the gait asymmetries, altered biomechanics, and related secondary consequences associated with LE amputation, gait training interventions are needed along with study of their efficacy. Overground training with verbal or other auditory, manual, and psychological awareness interventions was found to be effective at improving gait. Similarly, treadmill-based training was found to be effective: 1) as a supplement to overground training; 2) independently when augmented with visual feedback and/or body weight support; or 3) as part of a home exercise plan. Gait training approaches studied improved multiple areas of gait, including sagittal and coronal biomechanics, spatiotemporal measures, and distance walked.
Objectives To explore patient satisfaction, gout knowledge, medication adherence and flares among participants receiving nurse-led or general practitioner (GP)-led care of gout in the Nottingham Gout Treatment Trial phase-II (NGTT-II). Methods A total of 438 participants of NGTT-II were sent a questionnaire enquiring about gout knowledge, satisfaction with health-care practitioner, urate-lowering treatment being undertaken, and gout flares ⩾1 year after their final visit. Nurse-led care participants were asked about their preference for receiving gout treatment from either a GP or a nurse. Results Completed questionnaires were returned by 82% of participants. Participants previously receiving nurse-led care reported greater satisfaction with health-care practitioner (P < 0.001), had better gout knowledge (P = 0.02), were more likely to be taking urate-lowering treatment [adjusted relative risk (95% CI) 1.19 (1.09, 1.30)], and self-reported fewer flares in the previous 12 months [median (inter-quartile range) 0 (0–0) vs 1 (0–3), P < 0.001] than those receiving GP-led care. Of participants receiving nurse-led care, 41–63% indicated preference for receiving gout treatment from a nurse, while only 5–20% indicated preference for receiving treatment from GPs. Conclusion The results of this study favour nurse-led care, involving individualized patient education and engagement and a treat-to-target strategy, in terms of patient acceptability, long-term adherence, and flares. Further research is required to evaluate the feasibility of implementing such a model of care in clinical practice.
IntroductionKnee pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of disability. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence OA guidelines recommend education, exercise and weight loss advice (if overweight) as core interventions before pharmacological adjuncts. However, implementation of these in primary care is often suboptimal. This study aims to develop a complex intervention with non-pharmacological and pharmacological components that can be delivered by nurses. The feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and feasibility of undertaking a future cohort randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be explored.Methods and analysisIn phase 1, we will develop a training programme for nurses and evaluate the fidelity and acceptability of the non-pharmacological element of the intervention. Fidelity checklists completed by the nurse will be compared with video analysis of the treatment sessions. Patients and nurses will be interviewed to determine the acceptability of the intervention and explore challenges to intervention delivery. The non-pharmacological component will be modified based on the findings. In phase 2, we will assess the feasibility of conducting a cohort RCT comprising both the pharmacological and modified non-pharmacological components. We will compare three groups: group A will receive the non-pharmacological components delivered before pharmacological components; group B will receive pharmacological components followed by the non-pharmacological components; and group C (control arm) will continue to receive usual care. Study outcomes will be collected at three time points: baseline, 13 and 26 weeks after randomisation. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with a sample of participants from each of the two active intervention arms.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0288) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (protocol v4.0, 10/02/2020). The study will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidance and standards. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed academic journals.Trial registration numberNCT03670706
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.