4.5 Article

Evaluation of a home-based physiotherapy programme for those with moderate to severe multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled pilot study

Journal

CLINICAL REHABILITATION
Volume 25, Issue 8, Pages 720-730

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269215511398376

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; physiotherapy; home rehabilitation

Categories

Funding

  1. Priorities and Needs Programme (Social determinants and Interventions for Health), CSO, Scotland [PNFSDIH2008LM]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the effect of an eight-week home-based physiotherapy programme in reducing physical impairment, disability and psychological distress for people with moderate to severe multiple sclerosis (MS). Design: Pilot randomized controlled trial. Setting: Community; subjects' homes. Subjects: Thirty people moderately to severely affected by MS (Extended Disability Status Score, EDSS, 6.5-8) were randomized to an intervention or control group. Intervention: The intervention group received twice weekly, home-based physiotherapy for eight weeks and the control group received usual care. Main measures: The following outcome measures were recorded at baseline, post-intervention (Week 8) and at follow-up (Week 16). Primary outcome measure; Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS29) and secondary outcome measures assessed physical impairment, MS symptoms, quality of life, mood, and disability. Results: Although the Group * Time interaction failed to reach statistical significance with MSIS29 (p = 0.925), MS - related symptom checklist (MS-RS) (p = 0.627) and for lower limb strength, right knee extension (p = 0.375) and right knee flexion (p = 0.794), there is more evidence of altered levels in the treatment group than in the control group. Conclusion: A minimum of 58 subjects per group are required to achieve a power of 80% at the 5% level of significance based on the MSIS29. A larger scale study is required.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available