Physiotherapist and participant perspectives from a randomized-controlled trial of physiotherapist-supported online <i>vs.</i> paper-based exercise programs for people with moderate to severe multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose There is a gap in research on how best to support exercise in moderate to severe MS. The objective of this study is to share perspectives of people living with MS and physiotherapists on their experiences in a randomized clinical trial of online physiotherapy vs. an active comparator.Methods Semi-structured exit interviews were conducted with volunteer participants from the online and comparator arms of the trial, and focus groups were held with study physiotherapists. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.Results Perspectives from participants with MS yielded three themes: usability of their program, utility of their program, and motivation to participate. Visual and dexterity impairments limited the usability of the online program. Having an opportunity “to be pushed” was valued by participants in both trial arms. Motivation to exercise was variable, and participants desired periodic face-to-face contact with their physiotherapists. Perspectives from trial physiotherapists yielded similar and complementary findings concerning usability and utility.Conclusions Participants with MS and physiotherapists found the online physiotherapy platform useful for supporting exercise, yet they identified some limitations. As the appeal of online platforms has increased since the pandemic, it will be important to consider the needs of people with moderate to severe MS.Trial registration number NCT03039400.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPeople with moderate-to-severe MS and physiotherapists involved in a clinical trial found online physiotherapy useful for supporting exercise. Physiotherapists and participants using the online program desired improved platform accommodations for people living with MS with visual and dexterity impairments.Physiotherapists and people living with MS from both the online exercise program and comparator groups perceived a need for more face-to-face contact and opportunities to build therapeutic alliance.Perspectives from prescribing physiotherapists and people living with MS about supporting exercise online may have practice implications during and post-pandemic.
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 | 0.035 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".