Improvements following short term home based physical therapy are maintained at one year in people with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We previously demonstrated the efficacy of a 6 week home based physical therapy (PT) intervention for people with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This followup study determined if short term improvements were maintained to one year. METHODS: Participants in the short term study were randomly assigned to receive a PT intervention (education, exercise, and pain relief modalities) delivered by physiotherapists with advanced rheumatology training (Weeks 0 to 6) or to a wait list control group. The control group received the intervention between Weeks 6 to 12. Outcome measures included the Stanford Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (SES), the Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit Rheumatoid Arthritis Knowledge Questionnaire (KQ), and a visual analog scale for pain. Disease activity measures (tender joints, grip strength, and morning stiffness) were also included. MANOVA was used to compare within-subject scores at baseline and at 12 and 52 weeks. Paired t tests were used to determine if 12 week changes were maintained at 52 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 127 protocol completers, 117 (92.1%) were available for the one year followup. For those measures that showed significant improvement in the randomized controlled trial (SES, KQ, morning stiffness), improvements at 12 weeks were maintained at 52 weeks (p > 0.010). CONCLUSION: Subjects who participated in a short term home based PT intervention delivered by specially trained therapists reported improved outcomes following treatment, and these improvements were maintained at one year followup. Future studies need to explore the relative contributions of education, exercise, home based care, therapist training, and reinforcement strategies in improving longterm outcomes in RA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".