Background Pilates exercise is often undertaken by people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) with balance and mobility difficulties. Objectives Primary aim was to compare12 weeks Pilates with Relaxation upon balance and mobility. Secondary aims were to compare (i) Standardised Exercises (SE) with Relaxation and (ii) Pilates with SE. Methods Multi-centre, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 4.0-6.5 were randomly allocated to 12 weeks of Pilates, SE or Relaxation. Assessments were undertaken at baseline, weeks 12 and 16 (Primary outcome; 10 metre timed walk (10mtw)). Results 100 participants (mean age 54 years, 74% female) were randomised. Six relapsed (withdrawn), leaving 94 for intention to treat analysis. There was no significant difference between Pilates and Relaxation (p>0.05) in mean 10mtw. At 12 weeks there was a mean reduction of 4.2 seconds for SE compared with Relaxation (95% confidence interval (Relax minus SE): 0.0 to 8.4) and 3.7 seconds compared with Pilates (95% CI (Pilates minus SE): - 0.4 to 7.8). At 16 weeks, mean 10mtw for SE remained quicker than Pilates and Relaxation, although non-significant (both p>0.05). There were no significant differences between Pilates and Relaxation for any secondary outcome (p>0.05). Conclusion Participants did not improve significantly either in the short term, or at four weeks follow-up, in the 10mtw after 12 weeks of Pilates when compared to 12 weeks Relaxation.

Background: Telerehabilitation is a feasible and potentially effective alternative to face-to-face rehabilitation. However, specific guidance, training, and support for practitioners who undertake remote assessments in people with physical disabilities and movement impairment are limited. Objective: The aims of this survey of United Kingdom–based health and social care practitioners were to explore experiences, assess training needs, and collate ideas on best practices in telerehabilitation for physical disabilities and movement impairment. The aim will be to use the findings to inform a practical tool kit and training package for telerehabilitation use. Methods: UK rehabilitation practitioners were invited to complete an online questionnaire from November to December 2020. Opportunity and snowball sampling were used to recruit participants from professional and educational networks, special interest groups, and via social media. Closed questionnaire items were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative inductive analysis using NVivo was used for open responses. Results: There were 247 respondents, of which 177 (72%) were physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Most (n=207, 84%) had used video-based consultations (typically supported by telephone and email), and the use of this method had increased in frequency since the COVID-19 pandemic. Practitioners perceived telerehabilitation positively overall and recognized benefits for patients including a reduced infection risk, convenience and flexibility, and reduced travel and fatigue. Common obstacles were technology related (eg, internet connection), practical (eg, difficulty positioning the camera), patient related (eg, health status), practitioner related (eg, lack of technical skills), and organizational (eg, lack of access to technology). Support from family members or carers was a major facilitator for successful remote consultations. Of the 207 respondents who had used video-based consultations, 103 (50%) had assessed physical impairments using this method, 107 (52%) had assessed physical function, and 121 (59%) had used patient-reported outcome measures. Although practitioners generally felt confident in delivering video-based consultations, they felt less proficient in undertaking remote physical assessments, expressing concerns about validity, reliability, and safety. Only 46 of the 247 (19%) respondents had received any training in telerehabilitation or video consultations, and some felt they were “feeling their way in the dark.” Practitioners desired training and guidance on physical assessment tools suitable for remote use, when to use video-based consultations or alternative methods, governance issues, digital platforms, and signposting to digital skills training for themselves and their patients. Conclusions: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, practitioners rapidly adopted telerehabilitation for people with physical disabilities and movement impairment. However, there are technical, practical, and organizational obstacles to overcome, and a clear need for improved guidance and training in remote physical assessments. The findings of this survey will inform the development of a tool kit of resources and a training package for the current and future workforce in telerehabilitation.

Purpose: To gain insight into the experiences of, and potential solutions to, social isolation amongst severely impaired people with multiple sclerosis. Methods: A phenomenological research approach using face-to-face, in-depth semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews. Data were transcribed and analyzed thematically. Results: Sixteen severely impaired people with multiple sclerosis were interviewed (Expanded Disability Status Scale >6.5); aged 38–72 years, nine female, time since diagnosis ranged 3–30 years). Four key themes were generated in line with the study objectives, each with further sub-themes. The themes were (1) Definitions of isolation (2) Causes of isolation (3) Impact of isolation, and (4) Potential eases of isolation. Conclusions: Data portrayed social isolation as complex and multi-factorial in its definitions, its causes, and its impact. Isolation is not just about being lonely or left on one’s own, but represents a spiral of impacts. Physical deterioration can lead to reduced choice and control regarding access to, and interaction with others and society, affecting personal identity. Sometimes this leads to further self-isolation. Personalised psychosocial support, with improved ease of access, focused on helping people with severe multiple sclerosis regain a sense of self and their place in the world may ease social isolation.

People severely impaired with progressive multiple sclerosis spend much of their day sitting, with very few options to improve motor function. As a result, secondary physical and psychosocial complications can occur. Effective and feasible self-management strategies are needed to reduce sedentary behaviour and enhance motor function. In this study, we aimed to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of a home-based, self-managed, standing frame programme. SUMS was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled superiority trial of people with progressive multiple sclerosis and severe mobility impairment, undertaken in eight centres from two regions in the UK. The study had assessor-blinded outcome assessments with use of clinician-rated and patient-rated measures at baseline, 20 weeks, and 36 weeks. After baseline assessment, participants were randomised (1:1) by computer-generated assignment to either a standing frame programme plus usual care or usual care alone. The intervention consisted of two home-based physiotherapy sessions (60 min each) to set up the standing frame programme, supported by six follow-up telephone calls (15 min per call). Participants were asked to stand for 30 min, three times per week over 20 weeks, and encouraged to continue in the longer term, although no further physiotherapy support was provided. The primary clinical outcome was motor function measured by the Amended Motor Club Assessment (AMCA) score at week 36, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding only patients who were deemed ineligible after randomisation, those who withdrew from the trial and were unwilling for their previously collected data to be used, or those who did not provide baseline and week 36 measurements). A 9-point AMCA score change was considered clinically meaningful a priori. Adverse events were collected through a daily preformatted patient diary throughout the 36 weeks and analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. An economic assessment established the resources required to provide the standing frame programme, estimated intervention costs, and estimate cost effectiveness. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN69614598. Between Sept 16, 2015, and April 28, 2017, 285 people with progressive multiple sclerosis were screened for eligibility, and 140 were randomly assigned to either the standing frame group (n=71) or the usual care group (n=69). Of these, 122 completed the primary outcome assessment (61 participants in both groups) for the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The use of the standing frame resulted in a significant increase in AMCA score compared with that for usual care alone, with a fully adjusted between-group difference in AMCA score at 36 weeks of 4·7 points (95% CI 1·9-7·5; p=0·0014). For adverse events collected through patient diaries, we observed a disparity between the two groups in the frequency of short-term musculoskeletal pain (486 [41%] of 1188 adverse events in the standing frame group vs 160 [22%] of 736 adverse events in the usual care group), which was potentially related to the intervention. The musculoskeletal pain lasted longer than 7 days in five participants (two in the standing frame group and three in the usual care group). No serious adverse events related to the study occurred. The standing frame group had a mean 0·018 (95% CI -0·014 to 0·051) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with those of the usual care group, and the estimated incremental cost-per-QALY was approximately £14 700. The standing frame programme significantly increased motor function in people with severe progressive multiple sclerosis, although not to the degree that was considered a priori as clinically meaningful. The standing frame is one of the first physiotherapy interventions to be effective in this population. We suggest that the programme is feasible as a home-based, self-managed intervention that could be routinely implemented in clinical practice in the UK. UK National Institute of Health Research.

People with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) frequently experience balance and mobility impairments, including reduced trunk stability. Pilates-based core stability training, which is aimed at improving control of the body's stabilising muscles, is popular as a form of exercise with people with MS and therapists. A replicated single case series study facilitated by the Therapists in MS Group in the United Kingdom (UK) provides preliminary evidence that this approach can improve balance and mobility in ambulant people with MS; further evidence is needed to substantiate these findings to ensure that limited time, energy, finances and resources are used to best effect.