Feasibility of a new intervention addressing group-based balance and high-intensity training, physical activity, and employment in individuals with multiple sclerosis: a pilot randomized controlled trial.
Ellen Christin Arntzen, Tonje Braaten, Hanne Kristin Fikke and 1 others
PMID 38259873WHAT IT FOUND
A multidisciplinary balance and exercise programme was feasible and safe for employed people with MS, but showed no benefit over usual care.
Participants reported fewer work barriers within the group, but the trial was too small to prove the intervention works.
Key findings
01The intervention was feasible and safe, with high attendance for indoor sessions and digital meetings, and no relapses or serious adverse events reported.
02There were no significant differences between the intervention and usual care groups for any clinical outcome measure.
03Participants in the intervention group reported a significant reduction in work barriers within their own group, though this did not differ significantly from usual care.
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
The study was a small pilot (n=29) and was not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes. The content of 'usual care' was not defined or documented, making it impossible to know what the control group actually received. The sample was highly active at baseline (mean 9,269 steps/day), which may have created a ceiling effect for physical activity improvements. Outdoor session attendance was lower than indoor sessions, partly due to weather and illness, limiting the evaluation of that component.
Declared interests
Funded by the Northern Norwegian Regional Health Authorities. The funder played no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the study.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the significant within-group improvement in work barriers for the intervention group as evidence that the programme works. The study found no significant difference between the intervention and usual care groups, meaning the improvement could be due to natural fluctuation, placebo, or usual care effects.