TY - JOUR
T1 - Remotely delivered physiotherapy is as effective as face-to-face physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions (REFORM)
T2 - a randomised trial
AU - Withers, Hannah G.
AU - Glinsky, Joanne V.
AU - Chu, Jackie
AU - Jennings, Matthew D.
AU - Starkey, Ian
AU - Parmeter, Rachel
AU - Boulos, Max
AU - Cruwys, Jackson J.
AU - Duong, Kitty
AU - Jordan, Ian
AU - Wong, David
AU - Trang, San
AU - Duong, Maggie
AU - Liu, Hueiming
AU - Hayes, Alison J.
AU - Lambert, Tara E.
AU - Zadro, Joshua R.
AU - Sherrington, Catherine
AU - Maher, Christopher
AU - Lucas, Barbara R.
AU - Taylor, Deborah
AU - Ferreira, Manuela L.
AU - Harvey, Lisa A.
N1 - Copyright the Australian Physiotherapy Association 2024. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.
PY - 2024/4
Y1 - 2024/4
N2 - Question: Is remotely delivered physiotherapy as good or better than face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal conditions? Design: Randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis. Participants: A total of 210 adult participants with a musculoskeletal condition who presented for outpatient physiotherapy at five public hospitals in Sydney. Intervention: One group received a remotely delivered physiotherapy program for 6 weeks that consisted of one face-to-face physiotherapy session in conjunction with weekly text messages, phone calls at 2 and 4 weeks, and an individualised home exercise program delivered through an app. The other group received usual face-to-face physiotherapy care in an outpatient setting. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of –15 out of 100 points. Secondary outcomes included: the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 26 weeks; kinesiophobia, pain, function/disability, global impression of change and quality of life at 6 and 26 weeks; and satisfaction with service delivery at 6 weeks. Results: The mean between-group difference (95% CI) for the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks was 2.7 out of 100 points (–3.5 to 8.8), where a positive score favoured remotely delivered physiotherapy. The lower end of the 95% CI was greater than the non-inferiority margin. Whilst non-inferiority margins were not set for the secondary outcomes, the 95% CI of the mean between-group difference ruled out clinically meaningful differences. Conclusion: Remotely delivered physiotherapy with support via phone, text and an app is as good as face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal conditions. Trial registration: ACTRN12619000065190.
AB - Question: Is remotely delivered physiotherapy as good or better than face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal conditions? Design: Randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis. Participants: A total of 210 adult participants with a musculoskeletal condition who presented for outpatient physiotherapy at five public hospitals in Sydney. Intervention: One group received a remotely delivered physiotherapy program for 6 weeks that consisted of one face-to-face physiotherapy session in conjunction with weekly text messages, phone calls at 2 and 4 weeks, and an individualised home exercise program delivered through an app. The other group received usual face-to-face physiotherapy care in an outpatient setting. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of –15 out of 100 points. Secondary outcomes included: the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 26 weeks; kinesiophobia, pain, function/disability, global impression of change and quality of life at 6 and 26 weeks; and satisfaction with service delivery at 6 weeks. Results: The mean between-group difference (95% CI) for the Patient Specific Functional Scale at 6 weeks was 2.7 out of 100 points (–3.5 to 8.8), where a positive score favoured remotely delivered physiotherapy. The lower end of the 95% CI was greater than the non-inferiority margin. Whilst non-inferiority margins were not set for the secondary outcomes, the 95% CI of the mean between-group difference ruled out clinically meaningful differences. Conclusion: Remotely delivered physiotherapy with support via phone, text and an app is as good as face-to-face physiotherapy for the management of musculoskeletal conditions. Trial registration: ACTRN12619000065190.
KW - Musculoskeletal conditions
KW - Physical therapy
KW - Randomised clinical trial
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - Telehealth
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85187977122&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jphys.2024.02.016
DO - 10.1016/j.jphys.2024.02.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 38494405
AN - SCOPUS:85187977122
SN - 1836-9553
VL - 70
SP - 124
EP - 133
JO - Journal of Physiotherapy
JF - Journal of Physiotherapy
IS - 2
ER -