Feasibility of an Exercise‐Based Rehabilitation Programme for Chronic Hip Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic hip pain is prevalent and disabling and has considerable consequences for the individual, and health and social care. Evidence-based guidelines recommend that patients with chronic hip pain benefit from exercise, but these guidelines are predominantly based on the efficacy of knee rehabilitation programmes. Studies investigating hip rehabilitation programmes suggest that these may not be feasible, citing issues with case identification. This study evaluated the feasibility of an exercise-based rehabilitation programme in a primary care hospital. METHODS: Forty-eight participants with chronic hip pain were randomly allocated to receive a five-week exercise and self-management programme or to continue under the management of their general practitioner (GP). Participants were assessed at baseline, six weeks and six months. Outcome measures included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index physical function subscale, pain, objective functional performance, self-efficacy, anxiety and depression. RESULTS: This programme was feasible, well tolerated and easily implemented into a primary healthcare facility. Adherence to the programme was high (81% attendance). Immediately following rehabilitation, all outcomes measures improved (effect sizes 0.2-0.4), although these improvements diminished at six months. There were no differences between the groups (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An exercise-based rehabilitation programme was found to be feasible and well tolerated by people with chronic hip pain. The moderate effects in all outcomes immediately following rehabilitation suggested that it warrants further investigation. Issues with diagnosis and adaptations to the programme were identified and will be addressed in a randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".