Background and objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a challenge for health systems and, specifically, to physical therapists obligated to adapt their job and stop face-to-face consultations. In this situation, therapeutic exercise has been implemented in different COVID-19 patients. This study evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a novel therapeutic exercise program through telerehabilitation tools in COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptomatology in the acute stage. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 subjects were randomized an experimental group, based on muscle conditioning, and in a control group, who did not perform physical activity. Thirty-six subjects, 18 in each group, completed the one-week intervention. We measured the six-minute walking test, multidimensional dyspnoea-12, thirty seconds sit-to-stand test, and Borg Scale. Results: Both groups were comparable at baseline. Statistically significant improvement between groups (p < 0.05) in favor of the experimental group was obtained. No differences between gender were found (p > 0.05). Ninety percent adherence was found in our program. Conclusion: A one-week telerehabilitation program based on muscle toning exercise is effective, safe, and feasible in COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptomatology in the acute stage.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused distress for healthcare providers due to the respiratory problems it causes, among others. In this situation, rehabilitation of the respiratory system has been suggested and implemented in different COVID-19 patients. This study evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a novel program based on breathing exercises through telerehabilitation tools in COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptomatology in the acute stage. Forty subjects were randomized in an experimental group, based on pulmonary rehabilitation, and in a control group, of which the subjects did not perform physical activity. Thirty-eight subjects, with nineteen in each group, completed the one-week intervention. We performed measurements using the Six-Minute Walk Test, Multidimensional Dyspnoea-12, Thirty-Second Sit-To-Stand Test, and Borg Scale. Both groups were comparable at baseline. Significant differences were found for all of the outcome measures in favour of the experimental group. Ninety percent adherence was found in our program. A one-week telerehabilitation program based on respiratory exercises is effective, safe, and feasible in COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptomatology in the acute stage.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of two different exercise-based programs through telerehabilitation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Design Randomized, controlled, parallel, double-blinded, three-arm clinical trial. Setting Patients’ homes through telerehabilitation devices. Subjects Subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 in the acute phase. Interventions Subjects were divided into three groups: breathing exercises group, strength exercises group or no treatment/control group. Main measures We analysed visual analogue scale for fatigue, 6-minute walking test, 30-seconds sit-to-stand test, multidimensional dyspnoea-12 questionnaire and Borg scale at baseline and 14 days later. Results From 93 subjects recruited, 88 were enrolled, and 77 patients (mean [SD] age 39.40 [11.71]) completed the 14-days intervention and were included in the analysis: 26 in strength exercises group, 29 in breathing exercises group and 22 in control group. The intergroup analysis shows significant differences between the study groups and control group in all variables ( p < 0.05); Borg scale, multidimensional dyspnoea-12 questionnaire (pre–post intervention score: strength exercises group: 7.85 [6.82] – 4.54[4.82], breathing exercises group: 11.04 [6.49] – 5.32 [3.63], control group: 10.27 [6.49] – 10.59[6.58]), visual analogue scale for fatigue, 6-minute walking test and 30-seconds sit-to-stand test (pre–post intervention score: strength exercises group: 12.19 [4.42] – 13.58 [5.37], breathing exercises group: 11.18 [3.42] – 12.79 [4.00], control group: 10.45 [2.15] – 9.86[1.88]). The greatest effect sizes were found in the variables Borg Scale ( R2 = 0.548) and multidimensional dyspnoea-12 questionnaire ( R2 = 0.475). Conclusions Strength exercises group and breathing exercises group obtained significant improvements in fatigue, dyspnoea, perceived effort, and physical state, compared to control group, although the greatest benefits were found for dyspnoea and aerobic capacity in breathing exercises group.
Background Nonspecific chronic neck pain is a fairly common disorder that causes a great impact, and it is greatly influenced by psychosocial factors. Among a number of treatment modalities described for its management, the most common approach is based on manual therapy and specific therapeutic exercise, which have shown a moderate effect on subjects with chronic non-specific neck pain. However, the effect times of these treatments have not been accurately detailed. Our study aims to break down and compare the effects of two experimental treatments based on manual therapy and therapeutic exercise. Methods The short-term and mid-term changes produced by different therapies on subjects with non-specific chronic neck pain were studied. The sample was randomized divided into three groups: manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, and placebo. As dependent variables of our research, we studied (a) pain, based on the visual analog scale and the pressure pain threshold, and (b) cervical disability, through the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Outcomes were registered on week 1, week 4, and week 12. The findings were analyzed statistically considering a 5% significance level ( P ≤ 0.05). Results No statistically significant differences ( P 0.05) were obtained between the experimental groups, if they exist against the control group. Nonetheless, we found that manual therapy improved perceived pain before than therapeutic exercise, while therapeutic exercise reduced cervical disability before than manual therapy. Effect size ( R 2 ) shows medium and large effects for both experimental treatments. Conclusion There are no differences between groups in short and medium terms. Manual therapy achieves a faster reduction in pain perception than therapeutic exercise. Therapeutic exercise reduces disability faster than manual therapy. Clinical improvement could potentially be influenced by central processes. Trial registration Brazilian Clinical Trial Registry, RBR-2vj7sw. Registered on 28 November 2018.
The total isolation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires non-face-to-face medical assistance. There is evidence of the efficacy of home treatments with exercises in patients with respiratory disorders which could become the therapeutic method of choice for the treatment and supervision of patients isolated due to infection during home confinement. This study’s objective was to analyse the experience and opinions of isolated patients with COVID-19 included in a programme of telerehabilitation exercises for 14 days and it is intended to reflect, from a qualitative point of view, the viability and usefulness of telerehabilitation tools in the management of these patients. Twenty-five participants of a telerehabilitation programme were interviewed by telephone through semi-structured interviews, following a positivist and objective model. The data were categorised and analysed through NVIVO qualitative analysis software. The information obtained was classified into four main topics (telerehabilitation programme, perception of clinical benefit, psychological aspects and level of health care) and six subtopics (technical aspects, communication, improvement aspects, exercise plan, motivation and applicability to public health systems). The telerehabilitation programme established in patients confined by COVID-19 is very well received, without considerable technical difficulties and generates physical and psychological improvements. Patients highlight the importance of applying this type of programme in public health systems.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.