No abstract

ObjectivesTo explore the experiences of women with breast cancer taking part in an early physiotherapy-led exercise intervention compared with the experiences of those receiving usual care. To understand physiotherapists’ experience of delivering the trial intervention. To explore acceptability of the intervention and issues related to the implementation of the Prevention Of Shoulder Problems (PROSPER) programme from participant and physiotherapist perspective.DesignQualitative semistructured interviews with thematic analysis.SettingUK National Health Service.ParticipantsTwenty participants at high risk of shoulder problems after breast cancer surgery recruited to the UK PROSPER trial (10 each from the intervention arm and control arm), and 11 physiotherapists who delivered the intervention. Trial participants were sampled using convenience sampling. Physiotherapists were purposively sampled from high and low recruiting sites.ResultsParticipants described that the PROSPER exercise intervention helped them feel confident in what their body could do and helped them regain a sense of control in the context of cancer treatment, which was largely disempowering. Control arm participants expressed less of a sense of control over their well-being. Physiotherapists found the exercise intervention enjoyable to deliver and felt it was valuable to their patients. The extra time allocated for appointments during intervention delivery made physiotherapists feel they were providing optimal care, being the ‘perfect physio’. Lessons were learnt about the implementation of a complex exercise intervention for women with breast cancer, and the issues raised will inform the development of a future implementation strategy.ConclusionsA physiotherapist-delivered early supported exercise intervention with integrated behavioural strategies helped women at risk of shoulder problems following breast cancer treatment to feel more confident in their ability to mobilise their arm post-surgery. A physiotherapist-delivered early supported exercise intervention with integrated behavioural strategies may address the sense of powerlessness that many women experience during breast cancer treatment.Trial registration numberISRCTN35358984.

Objective To investigate the effectiveness of early rehabilitation compared with delayed/standard rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair for pain, function, range of movement, strength, and repair integrity. Design Systematic review and meta-analyses. Methods We searched databases and included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early with delayed/standard rehabilitation for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair surgery. We assessed risk of bias of the RCTs using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Results Twenty RCTs, with 1841 patients, were included. The majority of the RCTs were of high or unclear risk of overall bias. We found substantial variations in the rehabilitation programmes, time in the sling and timing of exercise progression. We found no statistically significant differences for pain and function at any follow-up except for the outcome measure Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation at six months (MD: 6.54; 95%CI: 2.24–10.84) in favour of early rehabilitation. We found statistically significant differences in favour of early rehabilitation for shoulder flexion at six weeks (MD: 7.36; 95%CI: 2.66–12.06), three (MD: 8.45; 95%CI: 3.43–13.47) and six months (MD: 3.57; 95%CI: 0.81–6.32) and one year (MD: 1.42; 95%CI: 0.21–2.64) and similar differences for other planes of movement. In terms of repair integrity, early mobilisation does not seem to increase the risk of re-tears (OR:1.05; 95%CI: 0.64–1.75). Discussion Current approaches to early mobilisation, based largely on early introduction of passive movement, did not demonstrate significant differences in most clinical outcomes, although we found statistically significant differences in favour of early rehabilitation for range of movement. Importantly, there were no differences in repair integrity between early and delayed/standard rehabilitation. Most rehabilitation programmes did not consider early active movement as soon as the patient feels able. With ongoing variation in rehabilitation protocols there remains a need for large high quality RCT to inform the optimal approach to rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair surgery.

| Background: There is a lack of questionnaires in Brazilian Portuguese to evaluate patient-reported lower limb function. Objective: To translate, cross-culturally adapt to the Brazilian population, and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). Method: The LEFS was translated by two independent assessors and back-translated to English. Then, the LEFS-Brazil was tested on 20 patients who answered the questionnaire in the cross-cultural adaptation phase. For the evaluation of the psychometric properties, 100 patients answered the questionnaire. The reliability was tested by two independent assessors. The Medical Outcomes Study 36-item from Health Survey (SF-36) was used as the criterion method for construct validity. The sensitivity to change was tested for four consecutive weeks. Results: The internal consistency was α = 0.96. The intra-observer reliability was CCI (intraclass correlation coefficient) = 0.96 and CCI interobserver = 0.98; the Bland and Altman mean difference ( d ) intra-observer = -1.52 and d interobserver = 0.46. The correlation between the LEFS and SF-36 in the first week was the following: physical function r=0.82, physical role r=0.57, emotional role r=0.43 and mental health r=0.33. The LEFS was responsive when comparing the mean of the first week to the second, third and fourth weeks and comparing the second to the fourth week. The cut-off point was 11, and the area under the receiving operator curve was 0.96 95% CI [0.88;0.99], with sensitivity = 0.96, 1-specificity = 0 and standard error = 0.02. Conclusion: The LEFS-Brazil is reliable, valid and responsive.Keywords: questionnaires; physical therapy; rehabilitation; validity; reliability; responsiveness. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

Objective To evaluate whether a structured exercise programme improved functional and health related quality of life outcomes compared with usual care for women at high risk of upper limb disability after breast cancer surgery. Design Multicentre, pragmatic, superiority, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. Setting 17 UK National Health Service cancer centres. Participants 392 women undergoing breast cancer surgery, at risk of postoperative upper limb morbidity, randomised (1:1) to usual care with structured exercise (n=196) or usual care alone (n=196). Interventions Usual care (information leaflets) only or usual care plus a physiotherapy led exercise programme, incorporating stretching, strengthening, physical activity, and behavioural change techniques to support adherence to exercise, introduced at 7-10 days postoperatively, with two further appointments at one and three months. Main outcome measures Disability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes included DASH subscales, pain, complications, health related quality of life, and resource use, from a health and personal social services perspective. Results Between 26 January 2016 and 31 July 2017, 951 patients were screened and 392 (mean age 58.1 years) were randomly allocated, with 382 (97%) eligible for intention to treat analysis. 181 (95%) of 191 participants allocated to exercise attended at least one appointment. Upper limb function improved after exercise compared with usual care (mean DASH 16.3 (SD 17.6) for exercise (n=132); 23.7 (22.9) usual care (n=138); adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval 3.17 to 12.44; P=0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured exercise over usual care, with lower pain intensity at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on numerical rating scale −0.68, −1.23 to −0.12; P=0.02) and fewer arm disability symptoms at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast+4 (FACT-B+4) −2.02, −3.11 to −0.93; P=0.001). No increase in complications, lymphoedema, or adverse events was noted in participants allocated to exercise. Exercise accrued lower costs per patient (on average −£387 (€457; $533) (95% confidence interval −£2491 to £1718; 2015 pricing) and was cost effective compared with usual care. Conclusions The PROSPER exercise programme was clinically effective and cost effective and reduced upper limb disability one year after breast cancer treatment in patients at risk of treatment related postoperative complications. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN35358984 .

No abstract

Three meta-analyses showed statistically significant results in favour of the aquatic physical therapy (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, stiffness and the 6-minute walk test) during a period of longer than 20 weeks. Due to the low methodological rigor, the results were insufficient to demonstrate statistical and clinical differences in most of the outcomes.

Purpose Treatments for breast cancer can lead to chronic musculoskeletal problems. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions aimed at reducing the risk of physical symptoms and functional limitations due to breast cancer treatment. Methods A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions during and following treatment for breast cancer was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches were carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, EconLit, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Cost-effectiveness evidence was summarised in a descriptive manner and studies were assessed using quality appraisal tools. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Results A total of 7783 articles were identified and seven were included in the final review. Five studies undertook trial-based economic evaluations, whereas two studies conducted economic evaluation based on decision models. One study was a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), three undertook stand-alone cost–utility analyses (CUA) and three studies were combined CEAs and CUAs. Three studies reported favourable cost-effectiveness results for different exercise or physiotherapy interventions. In contrast, four studies found that exercise and physiotherapy interventions were not cost-effective on the basis of quality-adjusted life year outcomes. Conclusions The evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions for the treatment of breast cancer remains sparse with contrasting conclusions. Future research should particularly aim to broaden the evidence base by disentangling the contributing effects of frequency, intensity, time and type of exercise and physiotherapy interventions on cost-effectiveness outcomes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05235-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.