, 2005). We have not attempted to analyse these differences. Whilst all studies included in this review were rated as high quality, some limitations were apparent. The studies had sample sizes ranging from n = 34 ( Laubach et al., 1996) to n = 695 ( Sluijs et al., 1993) with only five (25%) studies exceeding 300 subjects. Whilst there are

no universally agreed methods of calculating sample sizes for multivariate analysis, smaller studies with large numbers of predictive variables may allow less confidence in the findings ( Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Some studies included in this review may be subject to this limitation. Many potential predictors have not been investigated by the studies in our review. For example, low socioeconomic status (SES) emerged PS-341 concentration as a predictor of non-adherence with CPR (Jackson et al., 2005) and may warrant further investigation in populations with musculoskeletal disorders. In addition, much of the research has focussed on patient factors and little research has investigated the barriers introduced by selleck inhibitor health professionals or

health organisations (Miller et al., 1997). Further research to investigate potential barriers such as SES, health professional factors and health organisation factors would be appropriate. The most commonly used measures of adherence were attendance at appointments, adherence with home programmes and in-clinic adherence. Whilst attendance at appointments is standardised it provides no information about patient attitude

and behaviour towards rehabilitation e.g. adherence with home exercise programmes or within clinic adherence (Kolt et al., Bay 11-7085 2007). Patient self-reports using paper diaries were the most common measure of adherence with home programmes. However, poor real time compliance with diary completion and recall accuracy may lead to data of questionable validity (Stone et al., 2003). It is possible that the use of electronic diaries with compliance enhancing features may improve the quality and accuracy of data collected (Broderick and Stone, 2006 and Green et al., 2006). The most common measure of in-clinic adherence was the therapist-rated Sports Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale (SIRAS). However patients and practitioners may disagree on the level of patient adherence (Donovan, 1995 and Carr, 2001) and this variation between patient self-rating and therapist-rating of patient adherence leaves scope for considerable inaccuracy (Kolt and McEvoy, 2003). The use of therapist-rated adherence measures in conjunction with exercise diaries to corroborate patient self-reports (Kolt and McEvoy, 2003) may improve assessment of adherence (Shaw et al., 2005). Worsening pain during exercise was a barrier to adherence with exercise (Minor and Brown, 1993 and Dobkin et al., 2006) indicating that strategies to minimise initial pain are important. In most cases the appropriate use of simple analgesics, heat or ice coupled with passive physiotherapy treatments, e.g.