Evaluation of the Impact of a Smartphone App on Adherence to an Exercise Program in People With Chronic Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The benefits of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs on pain and function in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) are fairly well documented in the literature. However, these positive effects tend to fade over time due to low long-term patient adherence. Objective The study aimed to evaluate the impact of a smartphone app on adherence to an exercise program for people with CLBP at 6 months. The secondary aims were to assess the effectiveness of the app on pain, disability, fears, and beliefs related to physical activity, physical capacity, and qualitative adherence (correctness of exercise execution) at 6 months. Methods A total of 110 people with CLBP were included and randomized into 2 groups: 54 in the intervention group (IG) who received education on the use of the app in addition to usual care (a 3-week multidisciplinary rehabilitation program with self-management education) and 56 in the control group (CG) who received only usual care. Part B of the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale was used as the primary outcome to assess adherence to the 6-month exercise program. Secondary outcomes were pain (Numeric Rating Scale), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), barriers and facilitators to performing physical activity (Evaluation of Physical Activity Perception), physical capacity (battery of tests), and qualitative adherence (correctness of exercise execution). Statistical analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. A linear mixed model compared the primary end point between the groups at 6 months. Results A total of 71 of 110 participants (n=35 in the CG vs n=36 in the IG) were evaluated at 6 months. We did not observe any significant difference in the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale score between the CG and the IG (group difference 0.01, 95% CI −2.4 to 2.4; P =.97). The same findings were found for pain, disability, and barriers and facilitators to physical activity, except for the motivation criterion. The 6-Minute Walk Test (group difference [log] 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.12; P =.06), cycle ergometer (group difference 9.30, 95% CI 0.48-18.13; P =.04), Ito (group difference [log] 0.31, 95% CI 0.01-0.62; P =.04), plank (group difference [log] 0.29, 95% CI 0.03-0.54; P =.03), and qualitative adherence (IG mean 12.6, SD 1.3 vs CG mean 11.4, SD 1.4; P =.02) differed between the groups in favor of the IG. All outcomes improved from baseline to 6 months in the IG but not in the CG. Conclusions The smartphone app did not impact adherence to an exercise program at 6 months in individuals with CLBP. Similar results were found for pain and function. Nevertheless, the app could be a useful self-management tool in view of the positive effects on physical capacity and qualitative adherence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».