Compliance with a personalised home exercise programme in chronic low back pain patients after a multidisciplinary programme: A pilot randomised controlled trial.
R Lenoir Dit Caron, M Rouzée, J Coquart and 1 others
PMID 36466941WHAT IT FOUND
Adding a personalised home exercise calendar did not improve compliance compared to standard advice alone.
Both groups exercised similarly over 12 weeks. The pilot's results are unreliable due to extreme data loss, with only 15 of 30 participants completing the logbooks.
Key findings
01There was no significant difference in compliance between the personalised programme group and the control group for stretching, strengthening, aerobic activity, or total exercise time.
02Only 15 of the 30 recruited participants completed the logbooks required to assess the primary outcome of compliance.
03Both groups showed similar high adherence to aerobic activity, performing almost 500% of the recommended amount.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Extreme attrition: only 15 of 30 participants completed the logbooks needed for the primary outcome, making the results highly unreliable. No sample size calculation was performed because it was a pilot study. Compliance was measured by self-reported logbooks, which can be inaccurate or falsified. Both groups received weekly feedback via the logbook process, which may have acted as an intervention itself and biased adherence in the control group. The 3-month follow-up period may have been too short to capture typical drops in compliance, which often occur between 3 and 6 months.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that personalised exercise calendars are ineffective. The trial was a pilot with such severe data loss (only 15 of 30 participants analysed) that it lacks the power to detect real differences, and the authors explicitly state they cannot yet conclude on the usefulness of the personalised programme.