Jonas Svingen1,2, Jenny Rosengren2, Christina Turesson3,4, Marianne Arner1,2. 1. Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Hand Surgery, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Hand Surgery, Plastic Surgery and Burns, and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences Experimental, Linköping University, Linkoping, Sweden. 4. Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linkoping, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of a smartphone application on exercise adherence, range of motion and self-efficacy compared to standard rehabilitation after repair of the flexor digitorum profundus tendon. DESIGN: Prospective multi-centre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Four hand surgery departments in Sweden. SUBJECTS: A total of 101 patients (35 women) (mean age 37.5 ± 12.8) were randomised to control (n = 49) or intervention group (n = 52). INTERVENTION: A smartphone application to facilitate rehabilitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence assessed with the Sport Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale at two and six weeks (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes were self-reported adherence in three domains assessed at two and six weeks, self-efficacy assessed with Athlete Injury Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at baseline, two and six weeks. Range of motion and perceived satisfaction with rehabilitation and information were assessed at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were lost to follow-up. There was no significant between group difference in Sport Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale at two or six weeks, mean scores (confidence interval, CI 95%) 12.5 (CI 11.8-13.3), 11.8 (CI 11.0-12.8) for the intervention group, and 13.3 (CI 12.6-14.0), 12.8 (CI 12.0-13.7) for the control group. Self-reported adherence for exercise frequency at six weeks was significantly better for the intervention group, 93.2 (CI 86.9-99.5) compared to the controls 82.9 (CI 76.9-88.8) (P = 0.02). There were no differences in range of motion, self-efficacy or satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The smartphone application used in this study did not improve adherence, self-efficacy or range of motion compared to standard rehabilitation for flexor tendon injuries. Further research regarding smartphone applications is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I. Randomised controlled trial.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of a smartphone application on exercise adherence, range of motion and self-efficacy compared to standard rehabilitation after repair of the flexor digitorum profundus tendon. DESIGN: Prospective multi-centre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Four hand surgery departments in Sweden. SUBJECTS: A total of 101 patients (35 women) (mean age 37.5 ± 12.8) were randomised to control (n = 49) or intervention group (n = 52). INTERVENTION: A smartphone application to facilitate rehabilitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence assessed with the Sport Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale at two and six weeks (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes were self-reported adherence in three domains assessed at two and six weeks, self-efficacy assessed with Athlete Injury Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at baseline, two and six weeks. Range of motion and perceived satisfaction with rehabilitation and information were assessed at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were lost to follow-up. There was no significant between group difference in Sport Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale at two or six weeks, mean scores (confidence interval, CI 95%) 12.5 (CI 11.8-13.3), 11.8 (CI 11.0-12.8) for the intervention group, and 13.3 (CI 12.6-14.0), 12.8 (CI 12.0-13.7) for the control group. Self-reported adherence for exercise frequency at six weeks was significantly better for the intervention group, 93.2 (CI 86.9-99.5) compared to the controls 82.9 (CI 76.9-88.8) (P = 0.02). There were no differences in range of motion, self-efficacy or satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The smartphone application used in this study did not improve adherence, self-efficacy or range of motion compared to standard rehabilitation for flexor tendon injuries. Further research regarding smartphone applications is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I. Randomised controlled trial.
Entities:
Keywords:
Smartphone; adherence; flexor tendon; hand therapy; rehabilitation
Authors: Brian W Su; Michael Solomons; Andrew Barrow; Matshediso E Senoge; Marco Gilberti; Lawrence Lubbers; Edward Diao; H Matthew Quitkin; Melvin P Rosenwasser Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Monica E Wiig; Lars B Dahlin; Jan Fridén; Lars Hagberg; Sören E Larsen; Kerstin Wiklund; Margit Mahlapuu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Fabíola Costa; Dora Janela; Maria Molinos; Robert G Moulder; Jorge Lains; Gerard E Francisco; Virgílio Bento; Vijay Yanamadala; Steven P Cohen; Fernando Dias Correia Journal: Pain Rep Date: 2022-08-19