Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Prehabilitation influences exercise-related psychological constructs such as self-efficacy and outcome expectations to exercise [with consumer summary]
Brown K, Loprinzi PD, Brosky JA, Topp R
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2014 Jan;28(1):201-209
clinical trial
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: No. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a clinical condition affecting more than 27 million Americans. There is no known cure for OA other than replacing the diseased joint with a joint prosthesis, a process called total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The TKA projections for the year 2016 are 1,046,000, and this number is predicted to increase by 600% to more than 3.4 million cases by 2030. The purpose of this study was to determine whether knee OA patients who engage in guided exercise (prehabilitation) before their TKA report higher levels of self-efficacy to exercise (SEE) and higher outcome expectations for exercise (OEE) than those who do not. Thirty-one participants were randomized into 2 groups (16 in prehabilitation group (PRE) and 15 in control group (CON)), all participants completed the protocol (22 women and 9 men). The PRE group participated in an exercise intervention (prehabilitation) 3 times per week for 8 weeks before TKA. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to investigate the effects of group (PRE versus CON), time (baseline T1, T2, T3, and T4), and the interaction of group and time on the dependent variables of SEE and OEE. This analysis indicated that SEE did not change over time (p = 0.62) or between the groups (p = 0.86). The analysis of the OEE indicated a significant time effect (p = 0.008). Post hoc analysis indicated that the CON group significantly declined between T2 and T4. The PRE group did not significantly change their OEE over the 4 data collection points of the study.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help