Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWilliamson, E
dc.contributor.authorBoniface, G
dc.contributor.authorMarian, IR
dc.contributor.authorDutton, SJ
dc.contributor.authorGarrett, A
dc.contributor.authorMorris, A
dc.contributor.authorHansen, Z
dc.contributor.authorWard, L
dc.contributor.authorNicolson, PJA
dc.contributor.authorRogers, D
dc.contributor.authorBarker, KL
dc.contributor.authorFairbank, J
dc.contributor.authorFitch, J
dc.contributor.authorFrench, DP
dc.contributor.authorComer, C
dc.contributor.authorMallen, CD
dc.contributor.authorLamb, SE
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-16T12:20:10Z
dc.date.issued2022-03-12
dc.date.updated2022-05-16T12:03:59Z
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Neurogenic claudication (NC) is a debilitating spinal condition affecting older adults' mobility and quality of life. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial of 438 participants evaluated the effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST programme) compared to physiotherapy assessment and tailored advice (best practice advice [BPA]) for older adults with NC. Participants were identified from spinal clinics (community and secondary care) and general practice records and randomised 2:1 to the BOOST programme or BPA. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months. Data was also collected at 6 months. Other outcomes included ODI walking item, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and falls. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 74.9 years (SD 6.0) and 57% (246/435) were female. There was no significant difference in ODI scores between treatment groups at 12 months (adjusted mean difference (MD): -1.4 [95% Confidence Intervals (CI) -4.03, 1.17]), but, at 6 months, ODI scores favoured the BOOST programme (adjusted MD: -3.7 [95% CI -6.27, -1.06]). At 12 months, the BOOST programme resulted in greater improvements in walking capacity (6MWT MD 21.7m [95% CI 5.96, 37.38]) and ODI walking item (MD -0.2 [95% CI -0.45, -0.01]) and reduced falls risk (odds ratio 0.6 [95% CI 0.40, 0.98]) compared to BPA. No serious adverse events were related to either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The BOOST programme substantially improved mobility for older adults with NC. Future iterations of the programme will consider ways to improve long-term pain related disability.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
dc.format.extentglac063-
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 12 March 2022en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glac063
dc.identifier.grantnumberPTC-RP-PG-0213-20002en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/129645
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0003-0638-0406 (Williamson, Esther)
dc.identifierScopusID: 15924512700 (Williamson, Esther)
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0003-4349-7195 (Lamb, Sarah E)
dc.identifierScopusID: 7101956142 (Lamb, Sarah E)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherOxford University Press / Gerontological Society of Americaen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35279025en_GB
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_GB
dc.subjectexerciseen_GB
dc.subjectpainen_GB
dc.subjectpsychosocialen_GB
dc.subjectrehabilitationen_GB
dc.subjectspinal stenosisen_GB
dc.titleThe clinical effectiveness of a physiotherapy delivered physical and psychological group intervention for older adults with neurogenic claudication: the BOOST randomised controlled trial.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2022-05-16T12:20:10Z
dc.identifier.issn1079-5006
exeter.place-of-publicationUnited States
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from Oxford University Press via the DOI in this record. en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1758-535X
dc.identifier.journalThe Journals of Gerontology, Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciencesen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofJ Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-03-04
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-03-12
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2022-05-16T12:16:03Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2022-05-16T12:20:16Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2022-03-12


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.