Regular physical activity (PA) is increasingly promoted for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases as well as the general population. We evaluated if the public health recommendations for PA are applicable for people with inflammatory arthritis (iA; Rheumatoid Arthritis and Spondyloarthritis) and osteoarthritis (hip/knee OA) in order to develop evidence-based recommendations for advice and guidance on PA in clinical practice. The EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of recommendations were followed. A task force (TF) (including rheumatologists, other medical specialists and physicians, health professionals, patient-representatives, methodologists) from 16 countries met twice. In the first TF meeting, 13 research questions to support a systematic literature review (SLR) were identified and defined. In the second meeting, the SLR evidence was presented and discussed before the recommendations, research agenda and education agenda were formulated. The TF developed and agreed on four overarching principles and 10 recommendations for PA in people with iA and OA. The mean level of agreement between the TF members ranged between 9.8 and 8.8. Given the evidence for its effectiveness, feasibility and safety, PA is advocated as integral part of standard care throughout the course of these diseases. Finally, the TF agreed on related research and education agendas. Evidence and expert opinion inform these recommendations to provide guidance in the development, conduct and evaluation of PA-interventions and promotion in people with iA and OA. It is advised that these recommendations should be implemented considering individual needs and national health systems.

Background It is commonly assumed that patients with chronic low back pain are less active than healthy individuals. There has been a recent increase in the number of studies published comparing the physical activity levels of patients with chronic low back pain and healthy individuals. Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to determine, based on the current body of evidence, if patients with chronic low back pain have a lower level and/or altered pattern of physical activity compared with asymptomatic, healthy individuals. Data sources The electronic databases Embase, Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cinahl, Sport Discus and Nursing and Allied Health were searched from the beginning of each database until the end of December 2009. Review methods Studies which compared the level and/or pattern of physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain and healthy controls were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using an assessment tool based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The scale was modified for the purposes of this study. Results Seven studies were included in the final review. Four studies recruited adult patients (18-65 years), two studies examined older adults (≥65 years) and one study recruited adolescents (<18 years). Pooled data revealed no significant difference in the overall activity level of adults or adolescents with CLBP, however there is evidence that older adults with chronic low back pain are less active than controls. The results suggest that patients exhibit an altered pattern of physical activity over the course of a day compared to controls. Major methodological limitations were identified and are discussed. Conclusion There is no conclusive evidence that patients with chronic low back pain are less active than healthy individuals. Based on a limited number of studies, there is some evidence that the distribution of activities over the course of a day is different between patients with chronic low back pain and controls.

Background: Low-dye (LD) taping is commonly used to reduce rearfoot pronation. No studies have previously investigated the effectiveness of LD taping using both plantar pressure distribution (F-Scan) and 3-D (CODA) analysis of rearfoot motion.

Non-specific chronic spinal pain (NSCSP) is highly disabling. Current conservative rehabilitation commonly includes physical and behavioural interventions, or a combination of these approaches. Physical interventions aim to enhance physical capacity by using methods such as exercise, manual therapy and ergonomics. Behavioural and/or psychologically informed interventions aim to enhance behaviours, cognitions or mood by using methods such as relaxation and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Combined interventions aim to target both physical and behavioural and/or psychological factors contributing to patients' pain by using methods such as multidisciplinary pain management programmes. Since it remains unclear whether any of these approaches are superior, this review aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of physical, behavioural and/or psychologically informed, and combined interventions on pain and disability in patients with NSCSP. Nine electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants reporting NSCSP. Studies were required to have an "active" conservative treatment control group for comparison. Studies were not eligible if the interventions were from the same domain (e.g. if the study compared two physical interventions). Study quality was assessed used the Cochrane Back Review Group risk of bias criteria. The treatment effects of physical, behavioural and/or psychologically informed, and combined interventions were assessed using meta-analyses. 24 studies were included. No clinically significant differences were found for pain and disability between physical, behavioural and/or psychologically informed and combined interventions. The simple categorisation of interventions into physical, behavioural and/or psychologically informed and combined could be considered a limitation of this review, as these interventions may not be easily differentiated to allow accurate comparisons to be made. Further work should consider investigating whether tailoring Perspective: In this systematic review of RCTs in NSCSP, only small differences in pain or disability were observed between physical, behavioural and/or psychologically informed and combined interventions.

Little is known about the extent of exercise prescription within cancer care. This cross-sectional survey aims to identify Irish oncology nurses and physiotherapists' current knowledge and practice in prescribing exercise for cancer care and barriers to such prescription. An online survey was distributed to the Chartered Physiotherapists in Oncology and Palliative Care (n = 35) and the Irish Association for Nurses in Oncology (n = 170). The response rate was 74% (26/35) for physiotherapists and 34% (58/170) for oncology nurses. Three quarters of physiotherapists recommended/prescribed exercise with 81% or more of cancer patients in the past 6 months, with the exercises prescribed largely in line with current guidelines. Patients' family/friends advising rest was the most commonly reported exercise barrier by physiotherapists [89% (17/19)], with a lack of exercise guidelines for cancer patients being most problematic for oncology nurses [93% (50/54)]. Only 33% (18/54) of oncology nurses felt they had sufficient knowledge regarding exercise in cancer care. In conclusion, exercise prescription by physiotherapists largely corresponds with current guidelines. A minority of nurses felt they had sufficient knowledge of exercise for this population. Further formal postgraduate educational opportunities are needed for oncology nurses and physiotherapists in this area.