METHODS: This is an assessor-blinded randomized control trial comparing 2 types of intervention which are game-based circuit exercise (experimental group) and conventional circuit exercise (control group). Based on sample size calculation using GPower, a total number of 82 participants will be recruited and allocated into either the experimental or the control group. Participants in the experimental group will receive a set of structured game-based exercise therapy which has the components of resistance, dynamic balance and aerobic exercises. While participants in the control group will receive a conventional circuit exercise as usually conducted by physiotherapists consisting of 6 exercise stations; cycling, repeated sit to stand, upper limb exercise, lower limb exercise, stepping up/down and walking over obstacles. Both groups will perform the given interventions for 2 times per week for 12 weeks under the supervision of 2 physiotherapists. Outcomes of the interventions will be measured using 30-second chair rise test (for lower limb strength), Dynamic Gait Index (for postural stability), 6-minute walk test (aerobic capacity), Intrinsic Motivation Inventory questionnaire (for motivation level), stroke self-efficacy questionnaire (for self-efficacy) and Short Form-36 quality of life questionnaire (for quality of life). All data will be analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
DISCUSSION: This study will provide the information regarding the effectiveness of including game elements into circuit exercise training. Findings from this study will enable physiotherapists to design more innovative exercise therapy sessions to promote neuroplasticity and enhance functionality and quality of life among stroke survivors under their care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN 12621001489886 (last updated 1/11/2021).
Materials and Methods: From 2012 to 2014, we consecutively recruited patients with diabetic foot referred to Orthopaedic surgery department of our university for surgical opinion. A specific diabetic foot pathway was introduced in 2013. One group of patients who were treated with previous method were evaluated retrospectively. Another group of patients who were treated after implementation of the pathway were evaluated prospectively. We compared treatment outcome between the two groups.
Results: We included 51 patients. Amputation rate was similar both the groups: 74% in the retrospective group not using the new pathway versus 73% in a prospective group that used the new pathway. Revision surgery was 39% in the retrospective group and 14% in the prospective group (p=0.05).
Conclusion: We recommend the use of this simple and cost-effective pathway to guide the interdisciplinary management of diabetic foot. A prospective study with more subjects would provide a better overview of this management pathway.
Method: This cross-sectional study was carried out in urban areas in the Fars and Mazandaran provinces in 2016. The sample consisted of 143 and 96 family physicians, respectively, in Fars and Mazandaran provinces and was selected using the stratified random sampling method. Data were collected using a questionnaire and included both sociodemographic variables and factors assessing the family physicians' satisfaction levels. Each factor was scored based on a Likert scale from 0 to 5 points, and any satisfaction level higher than 3 out of 5 was equated with being satisfied.
Results: The overall satisfaction levels among family physicians in Fars and Mazandaran provinces were 2.77±0.53 and 3.37±0.56, respectively, revealing a statistically significant difference between provinces (p<0.001). Moreover, the mean satisfaction scores for the performances of healthcare centers, insurance companies, specialists, healthcare workers, and the population covered were 2.78±0.1, 2.54±0.9, 2.52±0.8, 4.24±0.07, and 2.96±0.8, respectively. The family physicians' levels of satisfaction were significantly correlated with population size (p=0.02, r= -0.106), and willingness to stay in an urban family physician program (p<0.001, r= +0.398).
Conclusion: This study revealed that family physicians exhibited a low level of satisfaction with the urban family physician program. Given the direct association between family physicians' satisfaction levels and retention in the program, it is expected that family physicians will no longer stay in the program, and it is likely to have subsequent executive problems.