4.2 Article

Education and exercise supplemented by a pain-guided hopping intervention for male recreational runners with midportion Achilles tendinopathy: A single cohort feasibility study

Journal

PHYSICAL THERAPY IN SPORT
Volume 40, Issue -, Pages 107-116

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.08.007

Keywords

Achilles tendinopathy; Pain-guided treatment; Hopping

Funding

  1. Department of Health [CAT SCL-2013-04-003] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To examine the feasibility of recommended education and exercise supplemented by a hopping intervention implemented based on self-reported pain over 12 weeks for recreational runners with Achilles tendinopathy. Design: Single cohort feasibility study. Setting: One private physiotherapy clinic in Melbourne, Australia. Participants: Fifteen male recreational runners with midportion Achilles tendinopathy. Main outcome measures: Recruitment and adherence measures, adverse events, intervention acceptability and treatment effect trends were measured at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks. Results: Recruitment (100%), retention (87%) and follow-up (93%) rates were high. Exercise adherence was 70% (SD = 12.7) but fidelity was 50% (SD = 13.9). Three participants suffered adverse events (undertaking activities contrary to advice). Participants reported the education package, perceived benefit, and feedback frequency as intervention enablers; while the onerous time commitment was regarded a barrier. At 12 weeks, five participants were satisfied and eight very satisfied, while VISA-A had improved 24 +/- 20.65 points (mu 2 = 0.740). Conclusions: A randomised control trial including recommended education and exercise with a pain-guided hopping intervention as treatment for recreational runners with midportion Achilles tendinopathy may be warranted, once strategies to improve adherence and reduce adverse events are addressed. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available