Background: In chronic stroke, feasible physical therapy (PT) programs are needed to promote function throughout life.Objective: This randomized controlled pilot trial investigated the feasibility and effect of a PT program composed of strengthening exercises with elastic bands and bimanual functional training, with clearly defined doses based on the rate of perceived exertion (Borg scale), to counteract inactivity in chronic stroke.Methods: Fifteen subjects > 6 month post-stroke were randomized to three-month of UE function training (UE group), or to lower extremity function training (LE group). At baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1) and three-month follow-up (T2) assessment included the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scale (FMA), Wolf Motor Function test (WMFT), grip strength, and muscle tone. Feasibility was also evaluated.Results: The mixed-model ANOVAs revealed a significant interaction between the time and group factors for FMA (p < .001) and WMFT (p = .009). The UE group improved upper extremity function and motor recovery significantly more than the LE group. There was no significant interaction between treatment group and change in grip strength over time (p = .217). No between-group differences (p > .05) were found in muscle tone. In the UE group, the attendance rate was ≥85% for 71.4% of subjects and 85.7% showed high satisfaction. No adverse events were recorded. After treatment, adherence to the program was higher in the UE group.Conclusions: The suggested PT program may be useful to improve the paretic UE function and motor recovery in chronic stroke. Moreover, it may be helpful to facilitate lifelong active involvement of stroke subjects in exercise.

Background and objectivesPrevious to the development of a clinical pathway (CP) for early spondyloarthritis (SpA), a qualitative study was performed to know the attitude of primary care physicians (PCP) with respect to CP implementation. Methods5 discussion groups (2 in Madrid, 2 in Barcelona and 1 in Sevilla) and 3 interviews in Bilbao, were performed. PCP with different profiles were included. Groups and interviews were carried out by experts on qualitative methodology. ResultsPCP know little about CP. Motivations of professionals to work on a SpA CP were: to improve patients care, availability of a specialist consultant, possibility of learning and doing research, remuneration, and professional recognition. Objections to CP implementation were: extra work, excessive bureaucracy, absence of a specialist consultant, computer difficulties, and no remuneration. SpA knowledge by PCP was defective. PCP associated the term “spondylitis” with osteoarthritis, low-back pain, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. They only referred patients to the rheumatologist to confirm the diagnosis, when patients complained and when treatment was ineffective. ConclusionsFor an optimal CP implementation, the following is deemed necessary: (1) a practical, simple program that eases the interaction with the rheumatologist without an increase on the PCP work load; (2) to provide continuous feedback by the specialist and (3) to provide knowledge on SpA to PCP.

Background and objectivesPrevious to the development of a clinical pathway (CP) for early spondyloarthritis (SpA), a qualitative study was performed to know the attitude of primary care physicians (PCP) with respect to CP implementation. Methods5 discussion groups (2 in Madrid, 2 in Barcelona and 1 in Sevilla) and 3 interviews in Bilbao, were performed. PCP with different profiles were included. Groups and interviews were carried out by experts on qualitative methodology. ResultsPCP know little about CP. Motivations of professionals to work on a SpA CP were: to improve patients care, availability of a specialist consultant, possibility of learning and doing research, remuneration, and professional recognition. Objections to CP implementation were: extra work, excessive bureaucracy, absence of a specialist consultant, computer difficulties, and no remuneration. SpA knowledge by PCP was defective. PCP associated the term «spondylitis» with osteoarthritis, low-back pain, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. They only referred patients to the rheumatologist to confirm the diagnosis, when patients complained and when treatment was ineffective. ConclusionsFor an optimal CP implementation, the following is deemed necessary: 1) a practical, simple program that eases the interaction with the rheumatologist without an increase on the PCP work load; 2) to provide continuous feedback by the specialist and 3) to provide knowledge on SpA to PCP.