Skip to content

Effectiveness of Community-Based Physiotherapy Versus General Practice

Effectiveness of Community-Based Physiotherapy in Chronic Disorders Versus General Practice in Primary Care. Multicenter Randomized Control Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01172483
Acronym
ECACOM
Enrollment
220
Registered
2010-07-29
Start date
2009-12-31
Completion date
2017-03-31
Last updated
2019-10-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Chronic Disorders

Keywords

primary care, physical and aquatic exercises, promotion physical activity, chronic disorders

Brief summary

Summary: (Objectives and methodology of the project) AIM: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Community physiotherapy intervention on chronic diseases (heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, back pain, mechanical neck pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis lower limbs, neurological and cancer survivors) and a group of healthy patients cardiovascular risk factors. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, prospective study. SUBJECTS OF STUDY: Patients with chronic disease go to the Local Sports Torremolinos Center INTERVENTION: Establishment of a control group that give you some advice education care (brief advice) and a group common experimental multimodal program of 12 weeks therapeutic exercise with health education (brief advice). It will follow up complete with ratings pre and post intervention to both groups and follow up at 6 and 12 months for long-term effect through specific questionnaires for each subgroup chronic disease and pain score (visual scale analog), quality of life (EuroQol-5D) and state health general (Short-Form 12, SF-12) VARIABLES: The intervention physical therapy Community. Result: Specific questionnaires for each subgroup, pain (Visual analogue scale), quality of life (EuroQoL) and general health status (SF-12). DATA ANALYSIS: descriptive statistics, measuring central tendency and dispersion of the variables study. Inferential statistics will be made between intervention of key variables and outcome (Chi square, Student t, ANOVA, Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, by type and normal variables). Likewise, establish measures of effect size in main outcome variables, by reduction relative risk, absolute risk and odds ratio with their respective confidence intervals.

Interventions

PROCEDUREgeneral practice in primary care and education

education of chronic disorders in PC

OTHERMultimodal community program

The intervention was an 8-week programme of MMPP combined with DWR, delivered by physiotherapists in groups of 8 to 10 participants. One-hour sessions were conducted 3 times per week, consisting of DWR and an individualised MMPP of therapeutic exercises combined with education based on cognitive-behavioural principles. Each session was comprised of 30 minutes of land-based exercise followed by 20 minutes of DWR, with an additional 10 minutes of warm-up and cool-down time. Deep water running stimulates running using a flotation device in water levels over head height. During the first two weeks of the intervention, participants undertook a low-intensity adaptation interval to learn proper exercise technique. For the remaining six weeks, participants were instructed to maintain a constant speed to achieve the prescribed HRAT. If experiencing pain while exercising, participants were asked to temporarily reduce intensity and return to target HR as capable.

Sponsors

Andaluz Health Service
CollaboratorOTHER_GOV
University of Malaga
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Intervention model description

Education & exercise

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* The inclusion criteria will be severe cuts of the disease based on functionality and not the dysfunction indicates the severity level higher 20% of the specific questionnaire for each subgroup

Exclusion criteria

* Common

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
International Physical activity QuestionnaireIPAQCRAIG, C. L., A. L. MARSHALL, M. SJÖSTRÖM, A. E. BAUMAN, M. L. BOOTH, B. E. AINSWORTH, M. PRATT, U. EKELUND, A. YNGVE, J. F. SALLIS, and P. OJA. International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-Country Reliability and Validity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 1381-1395, 2003.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Fibromyalgia Impact QuestionnaireFIQ
Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaireMLHFQ
Saint George questionnaireSGQ
Roland Morris QuestionnaireRMQ
WOMAC questionnaireWOMAC
Neck Disability IndexNDI
PIPER CANCER-RELATED FATIGUEPiper Fatigue Scale-Revised (PFS-R)The Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised (PFS-R). This 22-item self-report questionnaire asks respondents to rate their fatigue from 0 (no fatigue) to 10 (extreme) in 4 different domains: behavioral/severity, affective meaning, sensory and cognitive/mood.
Barthel IndexBI

Countries

Spain

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 24, 2026