Evaluation of the Online Exercise Coach.

Status

Recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

NL-OMON

Registry ID

NL-OMON21347

Enrollment

Registered

2009-03-04

Start date

2008-12-15

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2024-02-28

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

Conditions

Chronic pain, Webbased exercise, Compliance, Satisfaction, Preferences, Crhonische pijn, Oefeningen via internet, therapietrouw, tevredenheid, preferenties

Interventions

Subjects in the experimental group will receive six weeks of OEC follow-up treatment. Patients have access to their online tailored exercise programs by logging onto the website www.r-motion.nl. Patie

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Chronic low back pain; 2. RSI; 3. Whiplash; 4. Age of 18 years or older.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Insufficient control of the Dutch language.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
The primary objective is to investigate if the use of the Online Exercise Coach enhances compliance with the follow-up exercise program. Therefore the primary objective is: 1. Are patients who used the OEC during their follow-up exercise treatment more compliant than patients who did not use the OEC?	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Preferences: 1. What are the preferences of chronic pain patients regarding exercise follow-up treatment? A. Do chronic pain patients prefer the OEC or the traditional advice as exercise follow-up treatment? B. Which attributes of OEC and traditional advice exercise follow-up treatment are considered as most important by chronic pain patients? 2. Do exercise follow-up treatment preferences change after patients completed their follow-up treatment? Satisfaction: 3. How satisfied are patients on the factors of the intention-based models (such as the TPB and TAM model: attitude, self-efficacy and/or social support, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness)? 4. Is the technical performance of the OEC sufficient for clinical use from the end user perspective? Clinical Effectiveness: 5. Do patients’ interference of pain, actual pain levels, pain related fear of movement and general health change after six weeks of exercise follow-up treatment? 6. Do patients who used the OEC during their follow-up score better on interference of pain, actual pain levels, pain related fear of movement and general health than patients who did not use the OEC?	—

Measure

Time frame

Preferences: 1. What are the preferences of chronic pain patients regarding exercise follow-up treatment? A. Do chronic pain patients prefer the OEC or the traditional advice as exercise follow-up treatment? B. Which attributes of OEC and traditional advice exercise follow-up treatment are considered as most important by chronic pain patients? 2. Do exercise follow-up treatment preferences change after patients completed their follow-up treatment? Satisfaction: 3. How satisfied are patients on the factors of the intention-based models (such as the TPB and TAM model: attitude, self-efficacy and/or social support, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness)? 4. Is the technical performance of the OEC sufficient for clinical use from the end user perspective? Clinical Effectiveness: 5. Do patients’ interference of pain, actual pain levels, pain related fear of movement and general health change after six weeks of exercise follow-up treatment? 6. Do patients who used the OEC during their follow-up score better on interference of pain, actual pain levels, pain related fear of movement and general health than patients who did not use the OEC?

—

Contacts

Public ContactK. Cranen

k.cranen@rrd.nl+31 (0)53 487 5758

Outcome results

None listed

Source: NL-OMON (via WHO ICTRP)