Cited by 62Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedication Adherence and ComplianceMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Non-adherence to prescribed home rehabilitation exercises for musculoskeletal injuries: The role of the patient-practitioner relationship

Open access
Wright, B, Galtieri, N, Fell, M·2014·Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify which factors best explain non-adherence to home rehabilitation exercises (HRE) for patients with musculoskeletal injuries. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Participants (n = 87) aged 17-91 years completed questionnaires measuring demographic and injury-related information, self-efficacy, personality, health locus of control, patient-practitioner relationship, optimism, health value and adherence to HRE. In addition, each participant's attending physiotherapist assessed the participant's adherence and effort during the appointment. RESULTS: A hierarchical regression with 3 steps (step 1: disposition; step 2: cognitive factors; step 3: patient-practitioner relationship) and adherence to HRE as the dependent variable was conducted. The factors in step 3 were the most significant and explained 16% (p < 0.001) of the variance in adherence to HRE. In addition, a high score for patient neuroticism was found to correlate with poor adherence to HRE. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that the patient-practitioner relationship is the best predictor of adherence to HRE, and that improving patient perception of the clinician's productivity, communication of information and trust during consultations may improve adherence to HRE.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2340/16501977-1241

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wright, B., Galtieri, N., & Fell, M.
Affiliations
La Trobe University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Published
2014
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
153-158
ISSN
1650-1977 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2317831393
Cited by
62
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
exercise adherence, musculoskeletal injuries, patient-practitioner relationship, self-efficacy, health locus of control, optimism, neuroticism, physiotherapy, patient trust, health values
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Patient Compliance, Professional-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Wounds and Injuries, Young Adult, Physical Therapists

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review