Skip to main content
Download PDF

Randomized controlled trial of an internet-based self-guided hand exercise program to improve hand function in people with systemic sclerosis: the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Hand Exercise Program (SPIN-HAND) trial

Trials volume 23, Article number: 994 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma; SSc) is a rare autoimmune connective tissue disease. Functional impairment of hands is common. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN)-HAND trial compared effects of offering access to an online self-guided hand exercise program to usual care on hand function (primary) and functional health outcomes (secondary) in people with SSc with at least mild hand function limitations.

Methods

The pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group cohort multiple randomized controlled trial was embedded in the SPIN Cohort. Cohort participants with Cochin Hand Function Scale (CHFS) scores ≥ 3 and who indicated interest in using the SPIN-HAND Program were randomized (3:2 ratio) to an offer of program access or to usual care (targeted N = 586). The SPIN-HAND program consists of 4 modules that address (1) thumb flexibility and strength; (2) finger bending; (3) finger extension; and (4) wrist flexibility and strength. The primary outcome analysis compared CHFS scores 3 months post-randomization between participants offered versus not offered the program. Secondary outcomes were CHFS scores 6 months post-randomization and functional health outcomes (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System profile version 2.0 domain scores) 3 and 6 months post-randomization.

Results

In total, 466 participants were randomized to intervention offer (N = 280) or usual care (N = 186). Of 280 participants offered the intervention, 170 (61%) consented to access the program. Of these, 117 (69%) viewed at least one hand exercise instruction video and 77 (45%) logged into the program website at least 3 times. In intent-to-treat analyses, CHFS scores were 1.2 points lower (95% CI − 2.8 to 0.3) for intervention compared to usual care 3 months post-randomization and 0.1 points lower (95% CI − 1.8 to 1.6 points) 6 months post-randomization. There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes.

Conclusion

The offer to use the SPIN-HAND Program did not improve hand function. Low offer uptake, program access, and minimal usage among those who accessed the program limited our ability to determine if using the program would improve function. To improve engagement, the program could be tested in a group format or as a resource to support care provided by a physical or occupational therapist.

Trial registration

NCT03419208. Registered on February 1, 2018.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Systemic sclerosis (SSc, or scleroderma) is a rare systemic autoimmune disease characterized by vascular hyperreactivity and fibrosis of the skin and internal organs [1, 2]. Approximately 90% of people with SSc experience significant functional limitations in the hands, and hand function is more closely associated with disability than any other aspect of the disease [3,4,5,6,7,8].

In the absence of a cure, a primary goal of SSc care is to prevent and reduce disability and improve health-related quality of life [1]. Physical and occupational therapy techniques for the hands that have been described include rehabilitation exercises, connective tissue massages, joint manipulation, splinting, and heat or paraffin wax baths [9,10,11,12,13,14]. Existing evidence, however, tends to be descriptive or from very small trials with important limitations in design, conduct, and reporting [15]. As part of an ongoing living systematic review [16], we identified 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated physical or occupational therapy interventions designed specifically to improve hand function in SSc, but none analyzed data from ≥ 30 participants per trial arm [13, 14, 17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Two other small trials have evaluated a 12-week multidisciplinary day treatment program (N = 53) [26] and a minimally supervised general home exercise program (N= 44) [11]; both included hand exercises and reported that the interventions improved grip strength. A large, well-conducted RCT (N= 218) tested a 1-month supervised SSc hospital-based exercise therapy program (three weekly sessions of 3 h each for 4 weeks plus personalized home program), which included hand exercises, and reported that the program reduced hand disability at 1-month follow-up (3.7 points on Cochin Hand Function Scale (CHFS), 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2 to 6.1), but not after 6 or 12 months post-randomization [27]. Current guidelines for SSc management note the potential importance of rehabilitation interventions, but do not recommend for or against them due to limited evidence [28, 29].

Electronic health interventions are increasingly used to address a range of health care problems [30,31,32,33,34] and may be particularly important in rare diseases, such as SSc, where people face barriers to accessing specialized services. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) is an international network of researchers, clinicians, and people with SSc [35] that developed an online hand exercise program designed to improve hand function (SPIN-HAND) [36]. Prior to conducting a full-scale RCT, we conducted a randomized feasibility trial (N = 40) [36, 37] in which we utilized the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) design [35, 38] Based on routine cohort assessments, eligible participants were randomized to be offered the SPIN-HAND intervention or to usual care. We found that trial methodology was feasibly implemented and that the online SPIN-HAND Program was acceptable to patients, but uptake of the offer and program usage were low [37]. To attempt to address the low offer acceptance, in designing the full-scale trial we evaluated the interest of potential participants in using the intervention as part of trial eligibility criteria.

The aim of the full-scale SPIN-HAND trial was to evaluate the effect of being offered access to the SPIN-HAND Program, compared to usual care alone, on hand function (primary) and functional health outcomes (secondary).

Methods

The SPIN-HAND trial was a pragmatic, two-arm parallel cmRCT with a 3:2 allocation ratio to an offer of access to the SPIN-HAND Program in addition to usual care or to usual care alone. The trial was embedded in the SPIN Cohort and registered prior to enrolling participants (NCT03419208). Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada (#2013–147, 12–123-A).

SPIN Cohort

The SPIN Cohort was developed as a framework for embedded pragmatic trials using the cmRCT design [35, 38]. Participants in the SPIN Cohort enroll in an observational cohort with regular outcome measurement and consent to (1) allow their data to be used for observational studies; (2) allow their data to be used to assess intervention trial eligibility and, if eligible, be randomized; (3) if randomized to the intervention arm of a trial to be contacted and invited to consent to access and use an intervention; and (4) if randomized to usual care, allow their data to be used to evaluate intervention effectiveness without being notified that they are in the trial control group [35].

To be eligible for the SPIN Cohort, participants must be classified as having SSc based on 2013 American College of Rheumatology / European League Against Rheumatism criteria [39], confirmed by a SPIN physician; be ≥ 18 years old; be fluent in English, French or Spanish; and be able to respond to questionnaires via the internet. The SPIN Cohort is a convenience sample. Participants are recruited at SPIN sites (www.spinsclero.com/en/sites) during regular medical visits, and written informed consent is obtained. A medical data form is submitted online by the site to enroll participants. Cohort participants complete outcome measures via the internet upon enrollment and subsequently every 3 months [35]. SPIN Cohort enrollment started in March 2014 and is ongoing. The SPIN Cohort was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Canada (#12–123), and by the research ethics committees of each recruiting center.

Among sites with participants in the SPIN Cohort at the start of the trial, 32 sites from Canada, France, the USA, the UK, and Australia were included in the trial (81% of active participants); however, the Australian site had just started patient enrollment. Two sites in Spain and Mexico were excluded because the SPIN-HAND Program was not available in Spanish; participants from 3 sites were excluded due to concerns about other concurrent non-SPIN activities at those sites; and participants from 4 sites were excluded because they were involved in a concurrent feasibility trial of SPIN’s self-management program (SPIN-SELF) [40]. These 4 sites were from English-speaking countries or regions and were chosen based on the number of participants they had enrolled that would yield sufficient numbers for the SPIN-SELF feasibility trial.

SPIN-HAND trial eligibility

Assessment of trial eligibility occurred during participants’ regular SPIN Cohort assessments. Cohort participants were eligible for the SPIN-HAND trial if they completed their SPIN Cohort measures in English or French, reported at least mild hand function limitations (CHFS [41] ≥ 3), and indicated interest in using an online hand exercise intervention (≥ 6 on 0–10 scale). SPIN Cohort participants who met these criteria were then shown a webpage that described that SPIN was planning to do a study to evaluate the effect of an online program of hand exercises to prevent or reduce hand function problems in people with SSc, provided a description of the SPIN-HAND Program with screenshots of the most important features (i.e., program modules, exercise videos, goal setting, and patient stories) and the time required from participants, and asked whether, if invited, they would be willing to try the program (yes/no); those who answered “yes” were eligible and randomized. Participants randomized to the intervention group in the SPIN-HAND feasibility trial [36, 37] were excluded from the full-scale trial, but participants in the feasibility trial control arm were eligible because they had not been notified about the feasibility trial and did not have access to the SPIN-HAND Program during the feasibility trial.

Procedure: randomization, allocation concealment, consent, and blinding

Eligible participants were randomized automatically as they completed their regular SPIN Cohort assessments using a feature in the SPIN Cohort platform, which provided immediate centralized randomization and complete allocation sequence concealment. Participants randomized to usual care were not notified about the trial and completed their regular SPIN Cohort assessments [35, 38]. Thus, participants who were offered the intervention were not blind to their status, whereas participants assigned to usual care were blind to their participation in the trial and assignment to usual care. We used a 3:2 intervention to usual care control allocation ratio to be able to potentially evaluate dose–response effects as we anticipated that some intervention participants would not consent to use the program.

Participants randomized to the intervention arm received an automated email invitation including the brief screencast video about program features, a link to the program website, and a copy of the intervention consent form. At initial login to the SPIN-HAND platform, they were prompted to consent to participate, and those who consented were re-directed to the program introduction page. Participants who logged out without consenting returned to the consent page upon subsequent logins, if any.

SPIN personnel attempted to contact all intervention arm participants by phone, usually within 48 h of sending the invitation email, to describe the study, review the consent form, and answer questions. If participants could not be reached initially, up to 5 attempts were made in the 10 days post-randomization. If a participant was unreachable after five attempts, a sixth and last attempt was conducted approximately 20 days post-invitation. Email and phone technical support were available to help participants with the consent process and to access and use the intervention site.

Intervention and comparator

SPIN-HAND Program

Intervention arm participants had access to the SPIN-HAND Program through any electronical device (e.g., computer, tablet, smartphone) for the entire 6-month trial period. The program was designed by SPIN experts and members of the SPIN Patient Advisory Board [36]. The program utilizes exercises from rehabilitation programs that have improved hand function in SSc [27] and rheumatoid arthritis [42] and integrates key components of successful disease self-management programs, including goal setting and feedback, social modeling, and mastery experiences [43,44,45,46,47]. The core of the program consists of 4 modules that address (1) thumb flexibility and strength, (2) finger bending, (3) finger extension, and (4) wrist flexibility and strength.

The program includes sections on developing a personalized program, goal-setting strategies, progress tracking, sharing goals with friends or family, and patient stories about hand disability and exercises. Instructional videos explain and demonstrate how to perform each exercise properly with pictures to illustrate common mistakes. Participants can select modules in any order, based on a description of the type of function that the module targets. They are provided guidance on selecting exercise intensity levels by screenshots and descriptions of mild to moderate and severe hand involvement. Separate versions of exercises and instructional videos are available for both involvement levels. Additionally, some exercise videos for participants with severe hand involvement are complemented with pictures illustrating alternate versions of the exercise if the original exercise cannot be performed.

For the first 4 weeks of the program, participants focus on exercises in one module per week and are encouraged to perform the exercises 3–5 times per week. Time per day graduates from 3–4 min in week 1 to 5–15 min in week 4. Starting with week 5, participants can select from a menu of program options that fit their needs and schedule. These range from 5–10 min per day to 30–35 min per day.

The SPIN-HAND Program can be accessed online at https://tools.spinsclero.com.

Comparator

Participants in the usual care arm received usual care and routine reminders to complete regular SPIN Cohort measures. They did not have access to the SPIN-HAND Program and were not alerted that they were participants in the trial.

There were no restrictions on participants in the intervention or comparator arms with respect to any other hand-related interventions that might have been part of usual care outside of the trial.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome was CHFS score 3 months post-randomization [41]. Secondary outcomes were CHFS score 6 months post-randomization and patient-reported functional health outcomes measured with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) profile version 2.0 [48] at 3 and 6 months post-randomization. These trial outcome measures are routinely assessed as part of SPIN Cohort assessments. Additionally, the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 (CSQ-8) [49] was administered to intervention arm participants to assess program satisfaction.

Participants reported sociodemographic information via the SPIN Cohort. SPIN physicians provided medical information upon enrollment of participants in the SPIN Cohort, including dates of initial onset of Raynaud’s phenomenon symptoms, non-Raynaud phenomenon symptoms, and diagnosis; SSc subtype (limited, diffuse, sine); presence of joint contractures in small and large joints (none; mild [≤ 25% range of motion limitation]; moderate to severe [> 25%]); presence of tendon friction rubs (currently present or absent); and modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) [50].

The 18-item CHFS [41] measures the ability to perform hand-related activities. Items are scored on a 0–5 Likert scale (0 = without difficulty; 5 = impossible). The total score is obtained by adding the scores of all items (range 0–90). Higher scores indicate less functionality. The CHFS has good convergent validity with general functional disability measures and good sensitivity to change [41, 51, 52]. It has been validated in SSc [52].

The PROMIS-29v2.0 measures health status with 4 items each for the domains of physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, social roles and activities, and pain interference, plus a single item for pain intensity [48]. Items in domains are scored on a 5-point scale (item score range 1–5), and pain intensity is measured on an 11-point rating scale. Higher scores represent more of the domain being measured (i.e., better physical function and ability to participate in social roles and activities, but higher symptom levels). The sum of item scores for each domain are converted into T-scores standardized from the general US population (mean = 50, standard deviation [SD] = 10). The PROMIS-29v2.0 has been validated in SSc [53, 54].

The 8-item CSQ-8 measures client satisfaction with health care services. Items were modified slightly to refer to the SPIN-HAND Program, as opposed to a generic service. Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = low satisfaction, 4 = high satisfaction). Total scores range from 8 to 32, with higher scores indicating higher satisfaction [49].

Logins to the SPIN-HAND Program and usage of program components were assessed using automated usage logs collected through the SPIN-HAND platform.

Sample size

A standardized mean difference effect size of 0.25 may represent a clinically important difference in hand function for rheumatic disease patients [55]. Trials of home exercise programs in SSc [27] and rheumatoid arthritis [42] reported effect sizes of approximately 0.40 and 0.30, respectively. For an assumed effect size of standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.25, two-tailed with α = 0.05, and 3:2 randomization, data from N ≥ 528 participants would have provided 80% power. Assuming 10% loss to follow-up, our target sample size was to randomize 586 patients.

Statistical analyses

See Supplementary Material for the full statistical analysis plan. All analyses were conducted in R (R version 3.6.3; R Studio version 1.2.5042). We used an intent-to-treat analysis to estimate differences in scores between intervention and control participants with a linear mixed effects model fit using the lme function in nlme [56]. Intervention effects were adjusted for baseline CHFS scores, sex, age, disease duration, and diffuse versus limited SSc as fixed effects. To account for the different enrollment centers, we fit a random intercept for each site. Score differences were presented with 95% CIs.

To minimize the possibility of bias from missing outcome data, we used multiple imputation by chained equations using the mice package to generate 20 imputed datasets, using 15 cycles per imputed dataset. Variables in the mice procedure included center of enrolment, intervention arm, consent, measures of all primary and secondary outcomes at all three timepoints, age, sex, subtype, years since onset of the first non-Raynaud’s phenomenon symptom, presence of small joint contractures, and patient-reported severity of Raynaud’s phenomenon symptoms (0–10 scale) and digital ulcers (0–10 scale) at baseline. Pooled standard errors and associated 95% CIs were estimated using Rubin’s rules [57].

To estimate average intervention effects among compliers (defined as consent to use the SPIN-HAND Program), we used an instrumental variable approach [58, 59] to inflate intention-to-treat effects from main models by the inverse probability of compliance among intervention arm participants; 95% CIs were constructed via bootstrap with resampling [60, 61].

Statistical analyses were done blind to trial arm allocation, except for the complier effect analyses, which required knowledge of intervention arm consent. All analyses were 2-sided with α = 0.05. The frequency of logins and number of times modules and exercise videos were accessed were calculated from the usage log data. Usage data and the satisfaction outcome were reported using descriptive statistics.

Protocol amendments

There were two amendments to the trial protocol. First, initially, the EuroQoL-5D-5L [62] was specified as a secondary outcome in the trial registration. This outcome was removed prior to collecting outcome data. It was initially included to compute quality-adjusted life years for economic analyses. However, items of the EuroQoL-5D-5L do not align with SPIN-HAND Program targets, so it was not included in the trial, but the trial registration was not adjusted. Second, because we did not find evidence of improved hand function at 3 or 6 months post-randomization, and it is not plausible that there will be delayed effects given the low intervention uptake, we will not conduct planned analyses at 12 and 24 months post-randomization.

Patient and public involvement

Members of the SPIN Patient Advisory Board participated in the conception and development of the SPIN-HAND Program, design of the trial, selection of primary and secondary trial outcomes, development of trial procedures, and interpretation of study results. One of the members worked directly with researchers on the intervention development team to film the hand exercises and edit videos for the online program. All members reviewed and commented on this document.

Role of the funding source

Funders had no role in any aspect of study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation; manuscript drafting; or the decision to submit for publication.

Results

Participants

Enrollment started on March 12, 2018, and ended on November 19, 2019. During the period of enrollment, there were 1955 active SPIN Cohort participants, of whom 1592 were from sites included in the SPIN-HAND trial. A total of 1293 participants completed the eligibility forms as part of their regular assessments at least once during the trial period and were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 496 met inclusion criteria based on the CHFS and signalling item criteria. Thirty (6%) of these answered “no” to the question of whether they would try the SPIN-HAND Program if offered to them and were excluded. Thus, 466 (36%) of participants who were assessed met all inclusion criteria and were randomized. Enrollment was stopped before reaching the targeted sample size of 586 participants because all Cohort participants had had at least two opportunities to complete Cohort assessments, and enrollment of a substantial number of additional participants was unlikely.

Of the 466 participants, 280 (60%) were allocated to the intervention, and 186 (40%) to usual care. See Fig. 1 for SPIN Cohort participant flow through the trial. As shown in Table 1, intervention and control participants were similar. Overall, mean age was 55.8 years (SD = 12.4), 90% (N = 418) were female, and 87% (N = 396) identified as White. Participants were from the USA (N = 167, 36%), Canada (N = 125, 27%), France (N = 103, 22%), the UK (N = 70, 15%), and Australia (N = 1, < 1%). Mean time since diagnosis was 11.0 years (SD = 7.7 years), and 46% (N = 212) of participants had diffuse SSc. Upon enrolment in the trial, 93 of 280 (33%) and 55 of 186 (30%) of participants indicated having physical or occupational therapy in the previous 3 months (35 and 29% at 3 months follow-up, respectively). In total, 170 of 280 (61%) participants randomized to be offered the SPIN-HAND intervention consented to access the program. CHFS scores were similar for participants assigned to the intervention who consented to access the program (mean = 22.5, SD = 17.1) and those who did not (mean = 21.5, SD = 16.5).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram for the SPIN-HAND trial

Full size image
Table 1 Participant characteristics
Full size table

Usage of the SPIN-HAND Program

Between the baseline and 3-month assessments, 175 of the 280 (63%) participants randomized to the intervention logged in to the online intervention website, and 170 (61%) consented to use the program, though one person who consented did so after the 3-month follow-up.

During the trial period, of the 170 participants who consented, 48 (28%) logged in only once, 45 (26%) logged in twice, 50 logged in three or four times (29%), and 27 (16%) logged in more than 4 times (range 5 to 42 times). Overall, the mean number of logins was 3.8 (SD = 5.3; median = 2). Eighty-one participants (48%) used the website tour, and 117 (69%) viewed at least one hand exercise video in any of the 4 modules; 44 participants (26%) accessed 1 of the 4 modules, 23 (14%) accessed 2 modules, 16 (9%) accessed 3 modules, and 34 participants (20%) accessed all 4 modules. Among the modules, 92 participants (54%) accessed the Thumb Flexibility and Strength module, 71 (42%) accessed the Finger Bending module, 61 (36%) accessed the Finger Extension module, and 50 (29%) accessed the Wrist Flexibility and Strength module. The goal-setting feature was used by 46 participants (27%), and 4 participants (2%) shared goals with friends or family.

Trial outcomes

Outcome data were obtained for 357 of 466 (77%) participants at 3 months post-randomization, including 74% (206 of 280) of intervention participants and 81% (151 of 186) of usual care participants. At 6 months post-randomization, 363 (78%) participants completed at least one outcome measure in their SPIN Cohort assessment, including 212 of 280 (76%) intervention and 151 of 186 (81%) usual care participants. Table 2 shows complete-data outcomes at each time point.

Table 2 Outcome data immediately post-intervention and 6 months post-randomization (complete data only)
Full size table

As shown in Table 3, in the primary intent-to-treat analysis, CHFS scores were not statistically significantly different between groups immediately post-intervention. Post-intervention CHFS scores were 1.2 points lower (95% CI 2.8 points lower to 0.3 points higher) for intervention compared to usual care. In average complier effect analysis, this difference was 2.0 points lower (95% CI 4.7 points lower to 0.7 points higher). At 6 months post-randomization, results were similar between intervention and usual care (− 0.1 points, 95% CI − 1.8 to 1.6 points), including in average complier effect analysis (− 0.1 points, 95% CI − 3.1 to 2.9 points). Among other secondary outcomes, none of the PROMIS-29v2 domain scores were statistically significantly different immediately post-intervention or 6 months post-randomization. Results from complete case analyses are provided in the Supplementary Material.

Table 3 Trial outcomes: intention to treat and estimated average complier effect
Full size table

Satisfaction with the SPIN-HAND Program

Among intervention participants who completed the CSQ-8 post-intervention (N = 122), satisfaction with the program was moderately high. The mean total score was 25.5 (SD = 4.1). Mean item score was 3.2 on a 1 to 4 scale. See Table 4. The mean score was similar for participants who logged in more than once (N = 87; mean = 25.9, SD = 4.2) than for those who logged in only once (N = 34; mean = 24.3, SD = 3.8).

Table 4 Mean item and total scores for Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 (N = 122)
Full size table

Discussion

We tested whether the offer to access and use the SPIN-HAND online, self-guided hand exercise program would improve hand function and functional health outcomes. We found that no outcomes differed statistically significantly between participants who received the offer and participants assigned to usual care immediately post-intervention or at 6 months post-randomization. Our ability to draw conclusions about potential effectiveness of the SPIN-HAND Program, if used, however, was limited by the low rate of consent to access the intervention among those offered program access (61%) and the low rate of usage among those who did consent (45% logged in 3 or more times).

Based on our SPIN-HAND feasibility trial, it was expected that with approximately 1800 active participants in the SPIN Cohort of whom 36% would meet eligibility criteria, including 586 participants in the full-scale trial was feasible [37]. During the trial period, however, fewer than 1300 unique SPIN Cohort participants were assessed for trial eligibility due to cohort dropout over time and the need to exclude several sites, resulting in the inclusion of fewer participants than targeted.

Of even greater concern, almost 40% of participants in the trial who indicated pre-enrollment they would try the program if offered and were randomized to the intervention group did not consent to try the SPIN-HAND Program. Among those who did consent to use the program, actual usage was very low. Notably, 94% of all otherwise eligible participants indicated they would accept an offer to use the program if selected, suggesting that most people will agree and that this type of query may not be useful for separating potential participants who will consent and use programs like SPIN-HAND.

The cmRCT design is a post-randomization consent trial design [63,64,65]. In post-randomization consent trial designs with individual randomization (i.e., not cluster designs), randomization is done based on eligibility criteria prior to obtaining consent from participants. In most cmRCT trials [66,67,68], as with SPIN-HAND, cohort participants consent upon enrollment in the cohort to participate in possible future post-randomization consent trials; but, when such a trial is conducted, only those selected for the intervention, which is added to usual care, are approached to provide informed consent. Rather than evaluating an intervention among those who agree to receive it, these trials evaluate the effects of being offered an intervention [38].

Post-randomization consent or Zelen trials, when originally proposed, were conducted with participants with serious or life-threatening conditions that require treatment (e.g., cancer, neonatal conditions with high mortality risk) [63, 64] and where participants will almost certainly choose to receive some intervention; in these cases, competing interventions were evaluated. Important components of the rationale for using these designs included improving recruitment to trials and reducing expected disappointment effects, including crossover and dropout, among control participants in conventional trial models assigned to a standard treatment [63,64,65]. Indeed, in early trials done in cancer patients with the Zelen design, acceptance to participate was over 80% in most trials [63]. These designs have also been used effectively in trials that involve prevention or other public health interventions where both uptake and possible intervention benefits must be considered in evaluating intervention effects (e.g., prevention of suicide among high-risk individuals; offers of smoking cessation services to hospitalized smokers) [65, 69, 70]. More recently [27] a post-randomization consent trial compared a supervised, individualized physical therapy program to usual care in SSc, and acceptance of the intervention offer among randomized patients was high: 110/112 (98%) participants consented to the physical therapy program and 86% attended at least one session. This trial involved recruitment by treating physicians and in-person physical therapy that was not available in usual care.

The SPIN-HAND trial and other cmRCT trials [66,67,68] differ from most, though not all, trials that have successfully used Zelen designs in that they have typically used a post-randomization consent model for testing the offer of an intervention among people not seeking an intervention or in areas like prevention where the effect of combined uptake and effectiveness are of interest. Rather, investigators using the design have generally been interested in evaluating use of the intervention but have randomized participants to an offer of the intervention or no offer. cmRCT trials that have published results have consistently reported acceptance rates of < 55% [66,67,68]. In the case of SPIN-HAND, we were interested in the effect of using the intervention, but we hoped that the cmRCT design would facilitate enrollment and reduce disappointment bias. We mistakenly assumed that since there are few interventions available in SSc, uptake would be very high, even though SPIN Cohort participants were not specifically seeking help for hand function limitations. An important difference with a previous post-randomization consent trial that compared a supervised, individualized physical therapy program to usual care in SSc [27] was that for that trial, explanations regarding the study and intervention were given by the patient’s physician rather than a computerized procedure with follow-up from a research team, which may explain why acceptance was much higher in that study compared to the SPIN-HAND trial or other cmRCT trials.

A possible solution that has been suggested to reduce non-acceptance of intervention offers in the cmRCT design is to present cohort participants with a list of possible interventions as part of cohort assessments and ask if they would agree to use them if offered [38], as we did in our trial. In addition to this list of possible interventions, based on the low acceptance of the offer in our previous SPIN-HAND feasibility trial (63%) [37], we attempted to increase the acceptance of the SPIN-HAND intervention offer by providing more detailed information and adding another item to assess interest in participating. This additional eligibility criterion, however, did not improve consent in our trial. This suggests that these so-called “signalling items” may not be effective at identifying intervention accepters in advance. We took a similar approach in a recently completed feasibility trial of SPIN’s online self-management program that also enrolled participants through the SPIN Cohort, and results were similar (N= 40; consent rate 35%) [71].

In addition to trial design elements, the eligibility threshold for the CHFS (≥ 3 on 90-point scale) was low, and some participants in our SPIN-HAND trial may have had limited motivation to participate as their hand disability was mild. A recent study among 151 patients with SSc reported that the patient acceptable symptom state for CHFS score in people with SSc is 26 [72]. There was no difference in mean scores, however, between those who consented and those who did not, and many participants had high CHFS scores, suggesting this may not have been the central issue.

Another potential reason for the low uptake of the SPIN-HAND Program could be that it was delivered without support from a health professional. We designed the intervention as a self-guided online program to overcome barriers to delivering a rehabilitation intervention to people with a rare disease [35]. Online delivery of interventions is increasingly common and effective for addressing a range of healthcare problems. User adherence to online, self-administered interventions is low across settings, however, including behavioral and exercise interventions [73,74,75]. Given that the SPIN-HAND Program targets a health concern that is relevant to people with SSc, which is known as a factor that improves engagement [74], and because no alternative disease-specific exercise programs are available for many, we believed the uptake would be higher for this group, but this was not the case. Higher rates of adherence are typically obtained in interventions that include some human contact [74]. It is possible that the SPIN-HAND Program could be used more effectively as a resource in a blended care format, in which people with SSc could work with their local physical or occupational therapist to develop an individually tailored hand exercise program. Consistent with this concern about low uptake in a self-guided context, we have re-designed our SPIN-SELF intervention as a group-based intervention and are implementing a second feasibility trial with the new format and using a conventional parallel groups trial design within the SPIN Cohort rather than the cmRCT [76]. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we quickly launched a cohort-based group mental health intervention using a similar strategy; participation was very high, and follow-up data were collected from over 90% of enrolled participants [77].

Clinically, the SPIN-HAND Program could potentially be used as an adjunct to face-to-face physical or occupational therapy, and people with SSc could also use it in its self-guided online-only format, given that we do not believe that harms from using the program are likely. Potential users should be advised, however, that we do not know how much, if any, benefit would be accrued, if used. The SPIN-HAND Program is now available publicly, free-of-charge https://tools.spinsclero.com, and potential users have access to an overview with an explanation of what we know about likely effects of using the program (https://www.spinsclero.com/en/projects/spin-hand-toolkit).

Our trial and others suggest that the use of the cmRCT design may need careful re-consideration. The use of a cohort as an infrastructure for trials does appear to have benefits in terms of reductions in resources needed for multi-site trials and for having a pool of participants for multiple trials. Investigators may thus consider cohort-based trials for efficiency but without the prerandomization consent component of the cmRCT. For future SPIN trials, because of the low uptake of the intervention offer, we have revised our trial design, and instead of the cmRCT design, we will obtain consent for trials and randomize post-consent to interventions or comparators [76].

The present study has limitations that should be considered in interpreting its results. First and foremost, because of the poor consent rate and low usage of the SPIN-HAND Program, we do not know how effective the intervention would be if it were used by people with SSc. Second, the SPIN Cohort constitutes a convenience sample of SSc patients receiving treatment at a SPIN recruiting center and SSc patients in the SPIN Cohort complete questionnaires online which may limit the generalizability of finding as all participants already have Internet access and are comfortable using it in a research setting. A comparison between SPIN Cohort participants and the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) and Canadian Scleroderma Research Group (CSRG) cohorts, however, showed that the SPIN Cohort is broadly comparable with these cohorts, increasing confidence that insights gained from the SPIN Cohort should be generalizable [78].

Conclusions

In sum, we did not find a significant effect of our online SPIN-HAND Program on hand function. The low uptake of the offer of access and the limited usage of the SPIN-HAND Program of participants in the intervention arm, however, reduced our ability to draw conclusions about effectiveness if the program were used more actively. For future trials of SPIN interventions, to address the issue of a low uptake of the intervention offer, we have revised our trial design and, instead of the cmRCT design, we will obtain consent for the trial and randomize post-consent as in conventional RCT designs. In addition, we will re-design our interventions as online group-based interventions to improve engagement among participants.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CHFS:

Cochin Hand Function Scale

cmRCT:

Cohort multiple Randomized Controlled Trial

CSQ-8:

Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8

mRSS:

Modified Rodnan Skin Score

PROMIS-29:

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

SPIN:

Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network

SSc:

Systemic sclerosis

References

  1. Allanore Y, Simms R, Distler O, Trojanowska M, Pope J, Denton CP, et al. Systemic sclerosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015;1:15002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wigley FM, Hummers LK, et al. Clinical features of systemic sclerosis. In: Hochberg MC, Silman AJ, Smolen JS, et al., editors. Rheumatology. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2003. p. 1463–80.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rannou F, Poiraudeau S, Berezné A, Baubet T, Le-Guern V, Cabane J, et al. Assessing disability and quality of life in systemic sclerosis: construct validities of the Cochin Hand Function Scale, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Systemic Sclerosis HAQ, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kallen MA, Mayes MD, Kriseman YL, de Achaval SB, Cox VL, Suarez-Almazor ME. The Symptom Burden Index: development and initial findings from use with patients with systemic sclerosis. J Rheumatol. 2010;37:1692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bassel M, Hudson M, Taillefer SS, Schieir O, Baron M, Thombs BD. Frequency and impact of symptoms experienced by patients with systemic sclerosis: results from a Canadian national survey. Rheumatology. 2011;50:762–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Poole JL. Musculoskeletal rehabilitation in the person with scleroderma. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2010;22:205–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sandler RD, Matucci-Cerinic M, Hughes M. Musculoskeletal hand involvement in systemic sclerosis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020;50:329–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sandqvist G, Eklund M, Akesson A, Nordenskiöld U. Daily activities and hand function in women with scleroderma. Scand J Rheumatol. 2004;33:102–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Landim SF, Bertolo MB, Marcatto de Abreu MF, Del Rio AP, Mazon CC, Marques-Neto JF, et al. The evaluation of a home-based program for hands in patients with systemic sclerosis. J Hand Ther. 2019;32:313–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Poole JL, MacIntyre NJ, de Boer HN. Evidence-based management of hand and mouth disability in a woman living with diffuse systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Physiother Can. 2013;65:317–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Filippetti M, Cazzoletti L, Zamboni F, Ferrari P, Caimmi C, Smania N, et al. Effect of a tailored home-based exercise program in patients with systemic sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. Scandin J Med Sci Sports. 2020;30:1675–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yuen HK, Weng Y, Bandyopadhyay D, Reed SG, Leite RS, Silver RM. Effect of a multi-faceted intervention on gingival health among adults with systemic sclerosis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011;29(suppl 65):26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bongi SM, Del Rosso A, Galluccio F, Sigismondi F, Miniati I, Conforti ML, et al. Efficacy of connective tissue massage and Mc Mennell joint manipulation in the rehabilitative treatment of the hands in systemic sclerosis. Clin Rheumatol. 2009;28:1167–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bongi SM, Del Rosso A, Passalacqua M, Miccio S, Cerinic MM. Manual lymph drainage improving upper extremity edema and hand function in patients with systemic sclerosis in edematous phase. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63:1134–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Willems LM, Vriezekolk JE, Schouffoer AA, Poole JL, Stamm TA, Boström C, et al. Effectiveness of nonpharmacologic interventions in systemic sclerosis: a systematic review. Arthritis Care Res. 2015;67:1426–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Discepola MN, Carboni-Jiménez A, Kwakkenbos L, Henry RS, Boruff J, Krishnan A, et al. Effects of non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions on health outcomes in systemic sclerosis: protocol for a living systematic review. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e047428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sandqvist G, Akesson A, Eklund M. Evaluation of paraffin bath treatment in patients with systemic sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:981–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vannajak K, Boonprakob Y, Eungpinichpong W, Ungpansattawong S, Nanagara R. The short-term effect of gloving in combination with Traditional Thai Massage, heat, and stretching exercise to improve hand mobility in scleroderma patients. J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2014;5:50–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Piga M, Tradori I, Pani D, Barabino G, Dessì A, Raffo L, et al. Telemedicine applied to kinesiotherapy for hand dysfunction in patients with systemic sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis: recovery of movement and telemonitoring technology. J Rheumatol. 2014;41:1324–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stefanantoni K, Sciarra I, Iannace N, Vasile M, Caucci M, Sili Scavalli A, et al. Occupational therapy integrated with a self-administered stretching program on systemic sclerosis patients with hand involvement. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016;34(Suppl 100):157–61.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gregory WJ, Wilkinson J, Herrick AL. A randomised controlled trial of wax baths as an additive therapy to hand exercises in patients with systemic sclerosis. Physiotherapy. 2019;105:370–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kristensen LQ, Oestergaard LG, Bovbjerg K, Rolving N, Søndergaard K. Use of paraffin instead of lukewarm water prior to hand exercises had no additional effect on hand mobility in patients with systemic sclerosis: a randomized clinical trial. Hand Therapy. 2019;24:13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Murphy SL, Barber M, Huang S, Sabbagh M, Cutter G, Khanna D. Intensive and app-delivered occupational therapy to improve upper extremity function in early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: a pilot two-arm trial. Rheumatology. 2021;60:5002–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gokcen N, Badak SO, Sarpel T, Sertdemir Y, Erken E. The efficacy of a home-based, delf-administered hand exercise program for patients with systemic sclerosis: a randomized controlled, evaluator-blind, clinical trial. J Clin Rheumatol. 2022;28:e422–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Santos Cardozo Roque LC, Tenório ADS, de Aquino LT, Ferreira RDS, Duarte ALBP, Dantas AT. Joint mobilization and therapeutic exercises in the hands of patients with systemic sclerosis: a preliminary randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2022;36:113–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schouffoer AA, Ninaber MK, Beaart-van de Voorde LJ, van der Giesen FJ, de Jong Z, Stolk J, et al. Randomized comparison of a multidisciplinary team care program with usual care in patients with systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63:909–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rannou F, Boutron I, Mouthon L, Sanchez K, Tiffreau V, Hachulla E, et al. Personalized physical therapy versus usual care for patients with systemic sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2017;69:1050–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kowal-Bielecka O, Fransen J, Avouac J, Becker M, Kulak A, Allanore Y, et al. Update of EULAR recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1327–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Denton CP, Hughes M, Gak N, Vila J, Buch MH, Chakravarty K, et al. BSR and BHPR guideline for the treatment of systemic sclerosis. Rheumatology. 2016;55:1906–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kairy D, Lehoux P, Vincent C, Visintin M. A systematic review of clinical outcomes, clinical process, healthcare utilization and costs associated with telerehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31:427–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79:736–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dávalos ME, French MT, Burdick AE, Simmons SC. Economic evaluation of telemedicine: review of the literature and research guidelines for benefit-cost analysis. Telemed J E Health. 2009;15:933–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Foster NE, Williams B, Grove S, Gamlin J, Salisbury C. The evidence for and against “PhysioDirect” telephone assessment and advice services. Physiotherapy. 2011;97:78–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cottrell MA, Galea OA, O’Leary SP, Hill AJ, Russell TG. Real-time telerehabilitation for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions is effective and comparable to standard practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31:625–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kwakkenbos L, Jewett LR, Baron M, Bartlett SJ, Furst D, Gottesman K, et al. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort: protocol for a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design to support trials of psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions in a rare disease context. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Carrier ME, Kwakkenbos L, Boutron I, Welling J, Sauve M, van den Ende CHM, et al. Randomized feasibility trial of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network hand exercise Program (SPIN-HAND): study protocol. J Scleroderma Relat Disord. 2018;3:91–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kwakkenbos L, Carrier ME, Welling J, Turner K, Cumin J, Pépin M, et al. Randomized feasibility trial of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network hand exercise program (SPIN-HAND). PeerJ. 2022;10:e13471.

  38. Relton C, Torgerson D, O’Cathain A, Nicholl J. Rethinking pragmatic randomized controlled trials: introducing the “cohort multiple randomized controlled trial” design. BMJ. 2010;340:c1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. van den Hoogen F, Khanna D, Fransen J, Johnsen SR, Baron M, Tyndall A, et al. Classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65:2737–47.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Carrier ME, Kwakkenbos L, Nielson WR, Fedurok C, Nielsen K, Milette K, et al. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network self-management program: protocol for a randomized feasibility trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020;9:e16799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Duruöz MT, Poiraudeau S, Fermanian J, Menkes CJ, Amor B, Dougados M, et al. Development and validation of a rheumatoid hand functional disability scale that assesses functional handicap. J Rheumatol. 1996;23:1167–72.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lamb SE, Williamson EM, Heine PJ, Adams J, Dosanjh S, Dritsaki M, et al. Exercises to improve function of the rheumatoid hand (SARAH): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:421–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Foster G, Taylor SJ, Eldridge SE, Ramsay J, Griffiths CJ. Self-management education programmes by lay leaders for people with chronic conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;4:CD005108.

  44. Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Holman H, Lorig K. Perceived self-efficacy in self-management of chronic disease. In: Schwarzer C, editor. Self-efficacy: thought control of action. Pennsylvania: Taylor & Francis; 1992. p. 305–23.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Marks R, Allegrante JP, Lorig K. A review and synthesis of research evidence for self-efficacy-enhancing interventions for reducing chronic disability: implications for health education practice (part I). Health Promot Pract. 2005;6:37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Marks R, Allegrante JP, Lorig K. A review and synthesis of research evidence for self-efficacy-enhancing interventions for reducing chronic disability: implications for health education practice (part II). Health Promot Pract. 2005;6:148–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. The NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. http://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis. Accessed 3 June 2022.

  49. Larsen DL, Attkisson CC, Hargreaves WA, Nguyen TD. Assessment of client/patient satisfaction: development of a general scale. Eval Program Plann. 1979;2:197–207.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Clements P, Lachenbruch P, Siebold J, White B, Weiner S, Martin R, et al. Inter and intraobserver variability of total skin thickness score (modified Rodnan TSS) in systemic sclerosis. J Rheumatol. 1995;22:1281–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Poiraudeau S, Chevalier X, Conrozier T, Flippo RM, Lioté F, Noël E, et al. Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the Cochin Hand Function Disability Scale in hand osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001;9:570–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Brower LM, Poole JL. Reliability and validity of the Duruoz Hand Index in persons with systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Arthritis Rheum. 2004;51:805–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hinchcliff M, Beaumont JL, Thavarajah K, Varga J, Chung A, Podlusky S, et al. Validity of two new patient-reported outcome measures in systemic sclerosis: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29-item health profile and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Dyspnea Short Form. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63:1620–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kwakkenbos L, Thombs BD, Khanna D, Carrier ME, Baron M, Furst DE, et al. Performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 in scleroderma: a Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort study. Rheumatology. 2017;56:1302–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lineker S, Badley E, Hawker G, Wilkins A. Determining sensitivity to change in outcome measures used to evaluate hydrotherapy exercise programs for people with rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Care Res. 2000;13:62–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S., Sarkar D, R Core Team. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. 2021. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme

  57. Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91:444–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Imbens GW, Angrist JD. Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica. 1994;62:467–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. van der Leeden R, Busing FMTA, Meijer E. In: Bootstrap methods for two-level models. The Netherlands: Technical Report PRM 97–04, Leiden University, Department of Psychology, Leiden; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  61. van der Leeden R, Meijer E, Busing FMTA. Chapter 11: Resampling multilevel models. In: Leeuw J, Meijer E, editors. Handbook of multilevel analysis. New York: Springer; 2008. p. 401–33.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  62. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Zelen M. Randomized consent designs for clinical trials: an update. Stat Med. 1990;9:645–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Schellings R, Kessels AG, ter Riet G, Sturmans F, Widdershoven GA, Knottnerus JA. Indications and requirements for the use of prerandomization. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:393–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Simon GE, Shortreed SM, DeBar LL. Zelen design clinical trials: why, when, and how. Trials. 2021;22:541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Viksveen P, Relton C, Nicholl J. Depressed patients treated by homeopaths: a randomized controlled trial using the “cohort multiple randomized controlled trial”(cmRCT) design. Trials. 2017;18:299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Reeves D, Howells K, Sidaway M, Blakemore A, Hann M, Panagioti M, et al. The cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design was found to be highly susceptible to low statistical power and internal validity biases. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;95:111–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Gal R, Monninkhof EM, van Gils CH, Groenwold RHH, Elias SG, van den Bongard DHJG, et al. Effects of exercise in breast cancer patients: implications of the trials withing cohorts (TwiCs) design in the UMBRELLA Fit trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;190:89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Simon GE, Beck A, Rossom R, Richards J, Kirlin B, King D, et al. Population-based outreach versus care as usual to prevent suicide attempt: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Faseru B, Ellerbeck EF, Catley D, Gajewski BJ, Scheuermann TS, Shireman TI, et al. Changing the default for tobacco-cessation treatment in an inpatient setting: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kwakkenbos L, Østbø N, Carrier ME, Nielson WR, Fedoruk C, Levis B, et al. Randomized feasibility trial of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) program. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022;8:45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Daste C, Rannou F, Mouthon L, Sanchez K, Roren A, Tiffreau V, et al. Patient acceptable symptom state and minimal clinically important difference for patient-reported outcomes in systemic sclerosis: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing personalized physical therapy to usual care. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019;48:694–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Scholten MR, Kelders SM, Van Gemert-Pijnen JE. Self-guided web-based interventions: scoping review on user needs and the potential of embodied conversational agents to address them. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Schubart JR, Stuckey HL, Ganeshamoorthy A, Sciamanna CN. Chronic health conditions and internet behavioral interventions: a review of factors to enhance user engagement. Comput Inform Nurs. 2011;29:81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. McKay HG, King D, Eakin EG, Seeley JR, Glasgow RE. The diabetes network internet-based physical activity intervention: a randomized pilot study. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1328–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Nordlund J, Henry RS, Kwakkenbos L, Carrier ME, Levis B, Nielson WR, et al. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program: protocol for a two-arm parallel partially nested randomized controlled feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial. Trials. 2021;22:856.

  77. Thombs BD, Kwakkenbos L, Levis B, Bourgeault A, Henry RS, Levis AW, et al. Effects of a multi-faceted education and support programme on anxiety symptoms among people with systemic sclerosis and anxiety during COVID-19 (SPIN-CHAT): a two-arm parallel, partially nested, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021;3:e427–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Dougherty DH, Kwakkenbos L, Carrier ME, Salazar G, Assassi S, Baron M, et al. The Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort: baseline clinical features and comparison to other large scleroderma cohorts. Rheumatology. 2018;57:1623–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The SPIN team is dedicating the SPIN-HAND program to the memory of Dr. Serge Poiraudeau, who led the SPIN-HAND project team, along with Dr. Luc Mouthon. Dr. Poiraudeau cared deeply for the quality of life and well-being of people living with scleroderma, and without his leadership and dedication, the SPIN-HAND Program would not have been possible.

The SPIN Investigators: Richard S. Henry, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Susan J. Bartlett, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Catherine Fortuné, Ottawa Scleroderma Support Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Karen Gottesman, National Scleroderma Foundation, Los Angeles, California, USA; Geneviève Guillot, Sclérodermie Québec, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada; Laura K. Hummers, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Amanda Lawrie-Jones, Scleroderma Australia and Scleroderma Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Vanessa L. Malcarne, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA; Maureen D. Mayes, University of Texas McGovern School of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; Warren R. Nielson, St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada; Michelle Richard, Scleroderma Atlantic, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Shervin Assassi, University of Texas McGovern School of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; Andrea Benedetti, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Ghassan El-Baalbaki, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Carolyn Ells, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Kim Fligelstone, Scleroderma & Raynaud’s UK, London, UK; Tracy Frech, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA; Amy Gietzen, National Scleroderma Foundation, Tri-State Chapter, Binghamton, New York, USA; Daphna Harel, New York University, New York, New York, USA; Monique Hinchcliff, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; Sindhu R. Johnson, Toronto Scleroderma Program, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto Western Hospital, and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Maggie Larche, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Catarina Leite, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal; Karen Nielsen, Scleroderma Society of Ontario, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Janet Pope, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; Tatiana Sofia Rodriguez-Reyna, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Anne A. Schouffoer, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Maria E. Suarez-Almazor, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA; Christian Agard, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire—Hôtel-Dieu de Nantes, Nantes, France; Nassim Ait Abdallah, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital St-Louis, Paris, France; Marc André, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Gabriel-Montpied, Clermont-Ferrand, France; Elana J. Bernstein, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA; Sabine Berthier, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Dijon Bourgogne, Dijon, France; Lyne Bissonnette, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Alessandra Bruns, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Patricia Carreira, Servicio de Reumatologia del Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain; Marion Casadevall, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France; Benjamin Chaigne, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France; Lorinda Chung, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA; Benjamin Crichi, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital St-Louis, Paris, France; Christopher Denton, Royal Free London Hospital, London, UK; Robyn Domsic, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; James V. Dunne, St. Paul’s Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Bertrand Dunogue, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France; Regina Fare, Servicio de Reumatologia del Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain; Dominique Farge-Bancel, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital St-Louis, Paris, France; Paul R. Fortin, CHU de Québec – Université Laval, Quebec, Canada; Jessica Gordon, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, New York, USA; Brigitte Granel-Rey, Aix Marseille Université, and Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Marseille, Hôpital Nord, Marseille, France; Aurélien Guffroy, Les Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France; Genevieve Gyger, Jewish General Hospital and McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Eric Hachulla, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, Hôpital Claude Huriez, Lille, France; Ariane L Herrick, University of Manchester, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Sabrina Hoa, Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal – CHUM, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Alena Ikic, CHU de Québec – Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada; Niall Jones, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Suzanne Kafaja, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Nader Khalidi, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Marc Lambert, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, Hôpital Claude Huriez, Lille, France; David Launay, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, Hôpital Claude Huriez, Lille, France; Yvonne C. Lee, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Hélène Maillard, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, Hôpital Claude Huriez, Lille, France; Nancy Maltez, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Joanne Manning, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK; Isabelle Marie, CHU Rouen, Hôpital de Bois -Guillaume, Rouen, France; Maria Martin Lopez, Servicio de Reumatologia del Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain; Thierry Martin, Les Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France; Ariel Masetto, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; François Maurier, Uneos—Groupe hospitalier associatif, Metz, France; Arsene Mekinian, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital St-Antoine, Paris, France; Sheila Melchor Díaz, Servicio de Reumatologia del Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain; Mandana Nikpour, St Vincent’s Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Louis Olagne, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Gabriel-Montpied, Clermont-Ferrand, France; Vincent Poindron, Les Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France; Susanna Proudman, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Alexis Régent, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France; Sébastien Rivière, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital St-Antoine, Paris, France; David Robinson, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Esther Rodríguez Almazar, Servicio de Reumatologia del Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain; Sophie Roux, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Perrine Smets, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Gabriel-Montpied, Clermont-Ferrand, France; Vincent Sobanski, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Lille, Hôpital Claude Huriez, Lille, France; Robert Spiera, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City, New York, USA; Virginia Steen, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA; Evelyn Sutton, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Carter Thorne, Southlake Regional Health Centre, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada; John Varga, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Pearce Wilcox, St. Paul’s Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Marie-Nicole Discepola, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Laury Montemurro, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Elsa Lynn Nassar, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Marieke Alexandra Neyer, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany; Julia Nordlund, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Nora Østbø, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Sabrina Provencher, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

The SPIN-HAND trial was funded by the Arthritis Society (#SOG-16–380) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (PJT-149073). The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) has received funding for its core activities, including the SPIN Cohort, from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Arthritis Society, the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada, the Jewish General Hospital Foundation, Montreal, Canada, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, the Scleroderma Society of Ontario, Scleroderma Canada, Sclérodermie Québec, Scleroderma Manitoba, Scleroderma Atlantic, the Scleroderma Association of BC, Scleroderma SASK, Scleroderma Australia, Scleroderma New South Wales, Scleroderma Victoria, and Scleroderma Queensland. Dr. Thombs was supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair. Dr. Levis was supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQ-S) Postdoctoral Training Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Psychology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Linda Kwakkenbos

  2. Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Linda Kwakkenbos

  3. Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, 3755 Cote Ste Catherine Road, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada

    Marie-Eve Carrier, Brooke Levis, Kimberly A. Turner, Lydia Tao, Kylene Aguila, Andrea Carboni-Jiménez, Mara Cañedo-Ayala, Sami Harb, Marie Hudson & Brett D. Thombs

  4. NVLE Dutch Patient Organization for Systemic Autoimmune Diseases, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Joep Welling

  5. Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK

    Brooke Levis

  6. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Alexander W. Levis

  7. Scleroderma Society of Ontario, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Maureen Sauve

  8. Scleroderma Canada, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Maureen Sauve

  9. Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Cornelia van den Ende

  10. Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Marie Hudson & Brett D. Thombs

  11. Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Ward van Breda

  12. Université Paris Descartes, Université de Paris, Paris, France

    Christelle Nguyen, Isabelle Boutron, François Rannou & Luc Mouthon

  13. Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France

    Christelle Nguyen, Isabelle Boutron, François Rannou & Luc Mouthon

  14. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Brett D. Thombs

  15. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Brett D. Thombs

  16. Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Brett D. Thombs

  17. Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Brett D. Thombs

  18. Service de Médecine Interne, Centre de Référence Maladies Autoimmunes Systémiques Rares d’Ile de France, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France

    Luc Mouthon

Authors
  1. Linda Kwakkenbos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie-Eve Carrier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joep Welling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brooke Levis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexander W. Levis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maureen Sauve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kimberly A. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lydia Tao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kylene Aguila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Andrea Carboni-Jiménez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mara Cañedo-Ayala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Sami Harb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Cornelia van den Ende
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Marie Hudson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ward van Breda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Christelle Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Isabelle Boutron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. François Rannou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Brett D. Thombs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Luc Mouthon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the SPIN Investigators

  • Richard S. Henry
  • , Susan J. Bartlett
  • , Catherine Fortuné
  • , Karen Gottesman
  • , Geneviève Guillot
  • , Laura K. Hummers
  • , Amanda Lawrie-Jones
  • , Vanessa L. Malcarne
  • , Maureen D. Mayes
  • , Warren R. Nielson
  • , Michelle Richard
  • , Shervin Assassi
  • , Andrea Benedetti
  • , Ghassan El-Baalbaki
  • , Carolyn Ells
  • , Kim Fligelstone
  • , Tracy Frech
  • , Amy Gietzen
  • , Daphna Harel
  • , Monique Hinchcliff
  • , Sindhu R. Johnson
  • , Maggie Larche
  • , Catarina Leite
  • , Karen Nielsen
  • , Janet Pope
  • , Tatiana Sofia
  • , Anne A. Schouffoer
  • , Maria E. Suarez-Almazor
  • , Christian Agard
  • , Nassim Ait Abdallah
  • , Marc André
  • , Elana J. Bernstein
  • , Sabine Berthier
  • , Lyne Bissonnette
  • , Alessandra Bruns
  • , Patricia Carreira
  • , Marion Casadevall
  • , Benjamin Chaigne
  • , Lorinda Chung
  • , Benjamin Crichi
  • , Christopher Denton
  • , Robyn Domsic
  • , James V. Dunne
  • , Bertrand Dunogue
  • , Regina Fare
  • , Dominique Farge-Bancel
  • , Paul R. Fortin
  • , Jessica Gordon
  • , Brigitte Granel-Rey
  • , Aurélien Guffroy
  • , Genevieve Gyger
  • , Eric Hachulla
  • , Ariane L. Herrick
  • , Sabrina Hoa
  • , Alena Ikic
  • , Niall Jones
  • , Suzanne Kafaja
  • , Nader Khalidi
  • , Marc Lambert
  • , David Launay
  • , Yvonne C. Lee
  • , Hélène Maillard
  • , Nancy Maltez
  • , Joanne Manning
  • , Isabelle Marie
  • , Maria Martin Lopez
  • , Thierry Martin
  • , Ariel Masetto
  • , François Maurier
  • , Arsene Mekinian
  • , Sheila Melchor Díaz
  • , Mandana Nikpour
  • , Louis Olagne
  • , Vincent Poindron
  • , Susanna Proudman
  • , Alexis Régent
  • , Sébastien Rivière
  • , David Robinson
  • , Esther Rodríguez
  • , Sophie Roux
  • , Perrine Smets
  • , Vincent Sobanski
  • , Robert Spiera
  • , Virginia Steen
  • , Evelyn Sutton
  • , Carter Thorne
  • , John Varga
  • , Pearce Wilcox
  • , Marie-Nicole Discepola
  • , Laury Montemurro
  • , Elsa Lynn Nassar
  • , Marieke Alexandra Neyer
  • , Julia Nordlund
  • , Nora Østbø
  •  & Sabrina Provencher

Contributions

LK, MEC, JW, MS, CvdE, AAS, MH, IB, BDT, and LM were responsible for the study conception and design. LK, MEC, JW, MS, KAT, LT, KA, JC, ACJ, MCA, SH, CvdE, AAS, MH, CN, FR, BDT, and LM contributed to content development or production. LK, MEC, KAT, LT, KA, JC, ACJ, MCA, SH, BDT, and LM were responsible for implementation of the trial or data acquisition. LK, BL, AWL, WvB, and BDT were responsible for data analysis and interpretation of trial data. LK and BDT were responsible for drafting the manuscript. All authors provided a critical review and approved the final manuscript. BDT is the guarantor.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brett D. Thombs.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval for the SPIN-HAND trial was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada (#2013–147, 12–123-A).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Supplementary material.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kwakkenbos, L., Carrier, ME., Welling, J. et al. Randomized controlled trial of an internet-based self-guided hand exercise program to improve hand function in people with systemic sclerosis: the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Hand Exercise Program (SPIN-HAND) trial. Trials 23, 994 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06923-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06923-4

Keywords

Trials

ISSN: 1745-6215