Anu Piira1,2, Anne M Lannem3, Knut Gjesdal4, Raymond Knutsen5,6, Lone Jørgensen7,8, Thomas Glott3, Nils Hjeltnes3, Synnøve F Knutsen5,6, Marit Sørensen9. 1. Department of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway. anu.piira@kurbadet.no. 2. North Norway Rehabilitation Center, Tromsø, Norway. anu.piira@kurbadet.no. 3. Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Nesodden, Norway. 4. Department of Cardiology, Oslo university hospital Ullevål and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 5. North Norway Rehabilitation Center, Tromsø, Norway. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA. 7. Department of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway. 8. Department of Clinical Therapeutic Services, University Hospital North Norway, Tromsø, Norway. 9. Department of Coaching and Psychology, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN:Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data from two parallel independent single-blinded controlled randomized studies of manual (Study 1) and robotic (Study 2) locomotor training were combined (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00854555). OBJECTIVE: To assess effects of body-weight supported locomotor training (BWSLT) programs on HRQOL in persons with long-standing motor incomplete spinal cord injury and poor walking function. SETTINGS: Two inpatient rehabilitation facilities and one outpatient clinic in Norway. METHODS: Data were merged into intervention (locomotor training 60 days) or control group ("usual care"). Participants completed questionnaires before randomization and 2-4 weeks after the study period, including demographic characteristics, HRQOL (36-Item Short-Form Health Status Survey, SF-36), physical activity (The International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form, IPAQ-SF), exercise barrier self-efficacy (EBSE), and motivation for training (Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire, BREQ). Physical outcomes i.e., Lower extremity motor score (LEMS) was assessed. The main outcome was change in HRQOL. Secondary outcomes included changes in IPAQ-SF, EBSE, BREQ, and physical outcomes. RESULTS:We recruited 37 of 60 predetermined participants. They were autonomously motivated with high baseline physical activity. BWSLT with manual or robot assistance did not improve HRQOL, though LEMS increased in the BWSLT group compared with control group. CONCLUSIONS: The study was underpowered due to recruitment problems. The training programs seem to benefit LEMS, but not other physical outcomes, and had minimal effects on HRQOL, EBSE, and motivation. Autonomous motivation and high physical activity prior to the study possibly limited the attainable outcome benefits, in addition to limitations due to poor baseline physical function.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data from two parallel independent single-blinded controlled randomized studies of manual (Study 1) and robotic (Study 2) locomotor training were combined (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00854555). OBJECTIVE: To assess effects of body-weight supported locomotor training (BWSLT) programs on HRQOL in persons with long-standing motor incomplete spinal cord injury and poor walking function. SETTINGS: Two inpatient rehabilitation facilities and one outpatient clinic in Norway. METHODS: Data were merged into intervention (locomotor training 60 days) or control group ("usual care"). Participants completed questionnaires before randomization and 2-4 weeks after the study period, including demographic characteristics, HRQOL (36-Item Short-Form Health Status Survey, SF-36), physical activity (The International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form, IPAQ-SF), exercise barrier self-efficacy (EBSE), and motivation for training (Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire, BREQ). Physical outcomes i.e., Lower extremity motor score (LEMS) was assessed. The main outcome was change in HRQOL. Secondary outcomes included changes in IPAQ-SF, EBSE, BREQ, and physical outcomes. RESULTS: We recruited 37 of 60 predetermined participants. They were autonomously motivated with high baseline physical activity. BWSLT with manual or robot assistance did not improve HRQOL, though LEMS increased in the BWSLT group compared with control group. CONCLUSIONS: The study was underpowered due to recruitment problems. The training programs seem to benefit LEMS, but not other physical outcomes, and had minimal effects on HRQOL, EBSE, and motivation. Autonomous motivation and high physical activity prior to the study possibly limited the attainable outcome benefits, in addition to limitations due to poor baseline physical function.