Introduction European guidelines on the care of haemophilia recommend ready access to a range of services provided by a multidisciplinary team of specialists including physiotherapy. However, the scope of physiotherapy provided is unknown. Methods The Physiotherapists Committee of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders (EAHAD) conducted a web‐based survey to quantify the role and scope of practice of physiotherapists involved in haemophilia care. The survey was sent to more than 200 physiotherapists registered on the EAHAD database. Questions concerned their work practices including assessment and treatment activities and level of autonomy. Results Eighty physiotherapists from twenty‐four European countries responded. Considerable heterogeneity exists in roles, responsibilities, and clinical practice of physiotherapists, particularly in access to and type of physiotherapy treatment provided, as well as the skill set and autonomy of physiotherapists to make independent assessment and treatment decisions. Discussion This pan‐European survey establishes a context to support physiotherapy role development and professional identity. Key recommendations include the following: (a) establishing a pan‐European network to support collaboration and education for physiotherapists working in haemophilia, (b) developing a core skills and capability framework to ensure person‐centred approaches are central as well as working in partnership with those with the condition to maximize early recovery, support self‐management and enablement in remaining active and independent, (c) regular training, standardized validation and maintenance of competency for assessment tools, (d) well‐designed randomized clinical studies with larger numbers of participants from multiple sites should be the focus of future research.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Haemophilia treatment has seen great advances in recent years with an accompanied reduced risk of physical activity (PA) related bleeds. Based on its known health benefits, people with haemophilia (PWH) are currently encouraged to regularly engage in PA. However, this may not always translate to increased levels of PA. In this narrative review we aim to provide a brief overview of what is currently understood regarding PA levels and influences for the three broad age groups of children and adolescents, adults and older adults. We also provide recommendations for members of the haemophilia team on important aspects related to promotion of PA in their clinical practice. We highlight that PA behaviour is multifactorial and that many PWH still have limited access to adequate care. Whilst some still face unique challenges to being more physically active, overall, the barriers and facilitators to activity are very similar to that of the general population.

Introduction: Measurement of physical activity (PA) using commercial activity trackers such as Fitbit devices has become increasingly popular, also for people with haemophilia (PWH). The accuracy of the Fitbit model Charge 3 has not yet been examined. Aims: To compare the Fitbit Charge 3 against the research-grade accelerometer Acti-Graph GT3X-BT in measuring average daily steps and minutes spent in different PA intensities.Methods: Twenty-four young PWH wore a wrist-worn Fitbit Charge 3 and hip-worn ActiGraph GT3X-BT simultaneously for seven consecutive days in free-living conditions. Correlation of and differences between the devices for daily averages of PA parameters were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient and paired t-test, respectively. Agreement between devices was assessed using Bland-Altman plots.Results: Twenty participants (mean age 21.8) were included in the analyses. We found moderate to high correlations between Fitbit and ActiGraph measured daily averages for all PA variables, but statistically significant differences between devices for all variables except daily minutes of moderate PA. Fitbit overestimated average daily steps, minutes of light, vigorous and moderate-to-vigorous PA. Bland-Altman plots showed a measurement bias between devices for all parameters with increasing overestimation by the Fitbit for higher volumes of PA. Conclusion:The Fitbit Charge 3 overestimated steps and minutes of light, moderate