OBJECTIVE: This 12-week pilot study examines the efficacy of applying low frequency sound wave stimulation (between 16-160 Hz) through both hands and feet on relieving pain and improving functional ability in patients with chronic back pain.
METHODS: Twenty-three participants with chronic shoulder (eleven participants) or low back pain (twelve participants) underwent a 12-week vibration therapy program of three sessions per week. A low frequency sound wave device comprising four piezoelectric vibration-type tactile tranducers enclosed in separate 5-cm diameter circular plates, which generate sinusoidal vibratory stimuli at a frequency of 16-160 Hz, was used in this study. Primary outcome measure was pain sensation measured using the Visual Analogue Scale (P-VAS). The secondary outcome measures were pain-related disability measured using the pain disability index (PDI) and quality of life measured using the SF-12.
RESULTS: At week 12, significant reductions in pain sensation and pain-related disability were observed, with mean reductions of 3.5 points in P-VAS and 13.5 points in the PDI scores. Sixty-five percent of the participants had a reduction of at least 3 points on the P-VAS score, while 52% participants showed a decrease of at least 10 points in the PDI score. Significant improvement was observed in the SF-12 physical composite score but not the mental composite score.
CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary findings showed that passive application of low frequency sound wave stimulation therapy through both hands and feet was effective in alleviating pain and improving functional ability in patients with chronic back pain.
METHODS: Fifty-one participants performed the standard incremental treadmill exercise in a controlled laboratory setting with 12-lead ECG attached to the patient's body and wearing wrist-worn PPG trackers.
RESULTS: At each stage, the absolute percentage error of the PPG was within 10% of the standard acceptable range. Further analysis using a linear mixed model, which accounts for individual variations, revealed that PPG yielded the best performance at the baseline low-intensity exercise. As the stages progressed, heart rate validity decreased but was regained during recovery. The reliability was moderate to excellent.
CONCLUSIONS: Low-cost trackers AMAZFIT Cor and Bip validity and reliability were within acceptable ranges, especially during low-intensity exercise among patients with ischemic heart disease recovering from cardiac procedures. Though using the tracker as part of the diagnosis tool still requires more supporting studies, it can potentially be used as a self-monitoring tool with precautions.
METHODS: We recruited patients with CRDs from two hospitals in Klang Valley, Malaysia to a home-PR programme. Following centre-based assessment, patients performed the exercises at home (five sessions/week for eight weeks (total 40 sessions)). We monitored the patients via weekly telephone calls and asked about adherence to the programme. We measured functional exercise capacity (6-Minutes Walking Test (6MWT) and Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) (COPD Assessment Test (CAT)) at baseline and post-PR at nine weeks. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 purposively sampled participants to explore views and feedback on the home-PR programme. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically.
RESULTS: We included 30 participants; two withdrew due to hospitalisation. Although 28 (93%) adhered to the full programme, only 11 (37%) attended the post-PR assessment because COVID-19 movement restrictions in Malaysia at that time prevented attendance at the centre. Four themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: involvement of family and caregivers, barriers to home-PR programme, interactions with peers and health care professionals, and programme enhancement.
CONCLUSION: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the home-PR programme proved feasible for remote delivery, although centre-based post-PR assessments were not possible. Family involvement played an important role in the home-PR programme. The delivery of this programme can be further improved to maximise the benefit for patients.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to identify and describe existing studies on pretravel health services provided by CPs, and the barriers, and facilitators.
METHODS: The PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for pertinent studies from their inception to February 2023. A manual search was also conducted of prominent travel medicine journals, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of the included studies. Potential barriers and facilitators were mapped to the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).
RESULTS: There were twelve studies included in the review. Pretravel health advice was the most prevalent form of pretravel health services. Within ten domains of the TDF, various factors that either facilitate or impede the provision of pretravel health services by CPs were identified.
CONCLUSION: The provision of pretravel health services by CPs may be affected by a number of practitioner and organizational factors. The provision of pretravel health services can be facilitated by informational resources, training and education in travel medicine, and collaboration amongst healthcare providers.
METHODS: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with qualitative interviews was conducted. Each primary care doctor was considered a cluster and randomized to either the control (usual practice) or intervention (DeSSBack) group. Patient outcomes including Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a 10-point pain rating scale were measured at baseline and 2-month postintervention. The doctors in the intervention group were interviewed to explore feasibility and acceptability of using DeSSBack.
RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with nonspecific LBP participated in this study (intervention n = 23; control n = 13). Fidelity was poor among patients but good among doctors. The RMDQ and anxiety score had medium effect sizes of 0.718 and 0.480, respectively. The effect sizes for pain score (0.070) and depression score were small (0.087). There was appreciable acceptability and satisfaction with use of DeSSBack, as it was helpful in facilitating thorough and standardized management, providing appropriate treatment plans based on risk stratification, improving consultation time, empowering patient-centred care, and easy to use.
CONCLUSIONS: A future cRCT to evaluate the effectiveness of DeSSBack is feasible to be conducted in a primary care setting with minor modifications. DeSSBack was found useful by doctors and can be improved to enhance efficiency.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04959669).
METHODS: This was a single-blinded, randomized control trial involving 34 subjects between the age of 45-70 years (58.41±5.93) comparing retro-walking (RW) to forward-walking (FW). Subjects were randomly allocated to receive either RW with structured resistance training (SRT) or FW with SRT; 3 times a week for 12 weeks. The symptoms, pain, and function of daily living sub scores of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) along with Timed up and go (TUG) and Chair stand test (CST) were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks. The outcomes were analyzed with two-way repeated measure analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Significant improvements for all outcomes were observed intra-group (P value <0.05) after 12 weeks. The KOOS sub scores, TUG and CST times was not statistically significant between study groups (P value >0.05). However, the partial eta squared scores for all outcomes were better in the RW group compared to FW except for CST.
CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that RW is a feasible and non-inferior option to FW in the rehabilitation of subjects with bilateral knee OA.
SUBJECTS: Patients who were admitted to the University of Malaya Medical Centre due to cardiac events.
METHODS: Eight different machine learning models were evaluated. The models included 3 different sets of features: full features; significant features from multiple logistic regression; and features selected from recursive feature extraction technique. The performance of the prediction models with each set of features was compared.
RESULTS: The AdaBoost model with the top 20 features obtained the highest performance score of 92.4% (area under the curve; AUC) compared with other prediction models.
CONCLUSION: The findings showed the potential of using machine learning models to predict return to work after cardiac rehabilitation.