↓ Skip to main content

Study protocol: a mixed methods feasibility study for a loaded self-managed exercise programme for patellofemoral pain

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Study protocol: a mixed methods feasibility study for a loaded self-managed exercise programme for patellofemoral pain
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0167-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin E. Smith, Paul Hendrick, Marcus Bateman, Fiona Moffatt, Michael Skovdal Rathleff, James Selfe, Toby O. Smith, Pip Logan

Abstract

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is one of the most common forms of knee pain in adults under the age of 40, with a prevalence of 23% in the general population. The long-term prognosis is poor, with only one third of people pain-free 1 year after diagnosis. The biomedical model of pain in relation to persistent PFP has recently been called into question. It has been suggested that interventions for chronic musculoskeletal conditions should consider alternative mechanisms of action, beyond muscles and joints. Modern treatment therapies should consider desensitising strategies, with exercises that target movements and activities patients find fearful and painful. High-quality research on exercise prescription in relation to pain mechanisms, not directed at specific tissue pathology, and dose response clearly warrants further investigation. Our primary aim is to establish the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a definitive RCT which will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a loaded self-managed exercise programme for people with patellofemoral pain. This is a single-centred, multiphase, sequential, mixed-methods trial that will evaluate the feasibility of running a definitive large-scale randomised controlled trial of a loaded self-managed exercise programme versus usual physiotherapy. Initially, 8-10 participants with a minimum 3-month history of PFP will be recruited from an NHS physiotherapy waiting list and interviewed. Participants will be invited to discuss perceived barriers and facilitators to exercise engagement, and the meaning and impact of PFP. Then, 60 participants will be recruited in the same manner for the main phase of the feasibility trial. A web-based service will randomise patients to a loaded self-managed exercise programme or usual physiotherapy. The loaded self-managed exercise programme is aimed at addressing lower limb knee and hip weakness and is positioned within a framework of reducing fear/avoidance with an emphasis on self-management. Baseline assessment will include demographic data, average pain within the last week (VAS), fear avoidance behaviours, catastrophising, self-efficacy, sport and leisure activity participation, and general quality of life. Follow-up will be 3 and 6 months. The analysis will focus on descriptive statistics and confidence intervals. The qualitative components will follow a thematic analysis approach. This study will evaluate the feasibility of running a definitive large-scale trial on patients with patellofemoral pain, within the NHS in the UK. We will identify strengths and weaknesses of the proposed protocol and the utility and characteristics of the outcome measures. The results from this study will inform the design of a multicentre trial. ISRCTN35272486.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 10 6%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 53 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 34 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 18%
Sports and Recreations 12 8%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 59 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,436,135
of 23,573,233 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#57
of 1,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,956
of 315,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#1
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,573,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.