Prescription of individual therapeutic exercises via smartphone app for patients suffering from non-specific back pain : A qualitative feasibility and quantitative pilot study

Barriers and Facilitators to Physical Activity and Exercise Among People With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the barriers and facilitators to physical activity and exercise among people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). DESIGN: A qualitative evidence synthesis. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO databases from inception to July 2023. This review was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) (https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-uwnqh-v1). STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Qualitative or mixed-methods studies with a qualitative approach were included. Studies must have recruited adults, of both sexes, aged 18 years or older with CLBP. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used a thematic analysis approach in our review. First, participant quotes in the "Results" section of included studies were analyzed and coded. Second, the codes were used to create our coding framework. Then, the coding framework was applied to included studies. Finally, 2 reviewers independently analyzed the themes constructed in our qualitative evidence synthesis to identify barriers and facilitators for people with CLBP to engage in physical activity. RESULTS: Fifty-seven studies were included. The quality assessment (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) revealed that most studies (77%) had minor concerns. Barriers to physical activity were mainly related to pain intensity, fear of movement, intervention type, lack of information, motivation, and support. Facilitators of physical activity were adequate information, professional and social support, perceived benefits, and favorable conditions to engage in physical activity. Based on the GRADE-CERQual, most themes and subthemes presented moderate quality of evidence. CONCLUSION: The barriers to people with chronic LBP engaging in physical activity included pain intensity and fear of reinjury, type of intervention, lack of information, motivation and support, and occupational and socioenvironmental factors. The main facilitators were receiving information and support from health professionals, motivational activities, knowledge about benefits of the intervention, and external factors. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2025;55(5):1-19. Epub 7 April 2025. doi:10.2519/jospt.2025.12905.

Back on track - digital health applications to treat back pain of rheumatic patients? Results of a qualitative interview study

Non-specific low back pain (NLBP) is prevalent among patients with rheumatic conditions. Digital health applications (DiGAs) provide reimbursed, personalized home treatment for patients, promising to overcome limitations of traditional healthcare systems. However, the adoption and effectiveness of back pain-specific DiGAs in rheumatology are not well understood. This study aims to explore the experiences and perspectives of a diverse group of rheumatology stakeholders regarding the use of DiGAs for back pain management. Qualitative interviews and a focus group discussion were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders including rheumatic patients, rheumatologists, nurses and DiGA producers. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The study included 15 interviews (10 rheumatic patients, 4 rheumatologists, 1 DiGA producer) and 1 focus group with mixed participants (n = 12). Most stakeholders valued the instant access to personalized and effective back pain treatment provided by DiGAs. Patients appreciated the flexibility and ease of use of DiGAs which can be used anywhere and anytime. Concerns were raised about insufficient guidance regarding correct execution of exercises, which was seen as potentially dangerous and unsettling for patients. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) highlighted barriers, such as the lack of reimbursement, time constraints, and inadequate DiGA-specific education as barriers to prescribing DiGAs. Additionally, poor patient onboarding often led to delays, increased skepticism, and premature discontinuation of therapy. Stakeholders emphasized the challenges of current care driven by a shortage of HCPs and generally supported usage of back pain DiGAs. Various barriers and solution approaches were identified to enhance the performance, usability, and implementation of DiGAs in rheumatology.

Impact of 25 Years of Mobile Health Tools for Pain Management in Patients With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Mobile technologies are increasingly being used in health care and public health practice for patient communication, monitoring, and education. Mobile health (mHealth) tools have also been used to facilitate adherence to chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) management, which is critical to achieving improved pain outcomes, quality of life, and cost-effective health care.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the 25-year trend of the literature on the adherence, usability, feasibility, and acceptability of mHealth interventions in CMP management among patients and health care providers.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for studies assessing the role of mHealth in CMP management from January 1999 to December 2023. Outcomes of interest included the effect of mHealth interventions on patient adherence; pain-specific clinical outcomes after the intervention; and the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of mHealth tools and platforms in chronic pain management among target end users.

RESULTS

A total of 89 articles (26,429 participants) were included in the systematic review. Mobile apps were the most commonly used mHealth tools (78/89, 88%) among the included studies, followed by mobile app plus monitor (5/89, 6%), mobile app plus wearable sensor (4/89, 4%), and web-based mobile app plus monitor (1/89, 1%). Usability, feasibility, and acceptability or patient preferences for mHealth interventions were assessed in 26% (23/89) of the studies and observed to be generally high. Overall, 30% (27/89) of the studies used a randomized controlled trial (RCT), cohort, or pilot design to assess the impact of the mHealth intervention on patients' adherence, with significant improvements (all P<.05) observed in 93% (25/27) of these studies. Significant (judged at P<.05) between-group differences were reported in 27 of the 29 (93%) RCTs that measured the effect of mHealth on CMP-specific clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is great potential for mHealth tools to better facilitate adherence to CMP management, and the current evidence supporting their effectiveness is generally high. Further research should focus on the cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for better incorporating these tools into health care practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42024524634; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=524634.

Development and Use of Mobile Messaging for Individuals With Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Population studies show that musculoskeletal conditions are a leading contributor to the total burden of healthy life lost, second only to cancer and with a similar burden to cardiovascular disease. Prioritizing the delivery of effective treatments is necessary, and with the ubiquity of consumer smart devices, the use of digital health interventions is increasing. Messaging is popular and easy to use and has been studied for a range of health-related uses, including health promotion, encouragement of behavior change, and monitoring of disease progression. It may have a useful role to play in the management and self-management of musculoskeletal conditions.

OBJECTIVE

Previous reviews on the use of messaging for people with musculoskeletal conditions have focused on synthesizing evidence of effectiveness from randomized controlled trials. In this review, our objective was to map the musculoskeletal messaging literature more broadly to identify information that may inform the design of future messaging interventions and summarize the current evidence of efficacy, effectiveness, and economics.

METHODS

Following a prepublished protocol developed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis, we conducted a comprehensive scoping review of the literature (2010-2022; sources: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO) related to SMS text messaging and app-based messaging for people with musculoskeletal conditions. We described our findings using tables, plots, and a narrative summary.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 8328 papers for screening, of which 50 (0.6%) were included in this review (3/50, 6% previous reviews and 47/50, 94% papers describing 40 primary studies). Rheumatic diseases accounted for the largest proportion of the included primary studies (19/40, 48%), followed by studies on multiple musculoskeletal conditions or pain sites (10/40, 25%), back pain (9/40, 23%), neck pain (1/40, 3%), and "other" (1/40, 3%). Most studies (33/40, 83%) described interventions intended to promote positive behavior change, typically by encouraging increased physical activity and exercise. The studies evaluated a range of outcomes, including pain, function, quality of life, and medication adherence. Overall, the results either favored messaging interventions or had equivocal outcomes. While the theoretical underpinnings of the interventions were generally well described, only 4% (2/47) of the papers provided comprehensive descriptions of the messaging intervention design and development process. We found no relevant economic evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

Messaging has been used for the care and self-management of a range of musculoskeletal conditions with generally favorable outcomes reported. However, with few exceptions, design considerations are poorly described in the literature. Further work is needed to understand and disseminate information about messaging content and message delivery characteristics, such as timing and frequency specifically for people with musculoskeletal conditions. Similarly, further work is needed to understand the economic effects of messaging and practical considerations related to implementation and sustainability.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048964.

Smartphone applications are used for self-management, telerehabilitation, evaluation and data collection in low back pain healthcare: a scoping review

Background

Smartphone use has grown in providing healthcare for patients with low back pain (LBP), but the literature lacks an analysis of the use of smartphone apps. This scoping review aimed to identify current areas of smartphone apps use for managing LBP. We also aimed to evaluate the current status of the effectiveness or scientific validity of such use and determine perspectives for their potential development.

Methods

We searched PubMed, PEDro and Embase for articles published in English up to May 3 rd, 2021 that investigated smartphone use for LBP healthcare and their purpose. All types of study design were accepted. Studies concerning telemedicine or telerehabilitation but without use of a smartphone were not included. The same search strategy was performed by two researchers independently and a third researcher validated the synthesis of the included studies.

Results

We included 43 articles: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n=12), study protocols (n=6), reliability/validity studies (n=6), systematic reviews (n=7), cohort studies (n=4), qualitative studies (n=6), and case series (n=1). The purposes of the smartphone app were for 1) evaluation, 2) telerehabilitation, 3) self-management, and 4) data collection. Self-management was the most-studied use, showing promising results derived from moderate- to good-quality RCTs for patients with chronic LBP and patients after spinal surgery. Promising results exist regarding evaluation and data collection use and contradictory results regarding measurement use.

Conclusions

This scoping review revealed a notable interest in the scientific literatures regarding the use of smartphone apps for LBP patients. The identified purposes point to current scientific status and perspectives for further studies including RCTs and systematic reviews targeting specific usage.

Efficacy of mHealth Interventions for Improving the Pain and Disability of Individuals With Chronic Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Low back pain is one of the main causes of disability worldwide. Individuals with chronic conditions have been widely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, mobile health (mHealth) has become popular, mostly due to the widespread use of smartphones. Despite the considerable number of apps for low back pain available in app stores, the effectiveness of these technologies is not established, and there is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of the isolated use of mobile apps in the self-management of low back pain.

Objective

We summarized the evidence on the effectiveness of mHealth interventions on pain and disability for individuals with chronic low back pain.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mHealth to usual care or no intervention. The search terms used were related to low back pain and mHealth. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability, and the secondary outcome was quality of life. Searches were carried out in the following databases, without date or language restriction: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the Cochrane Library, and OpenGrey, in addition to article references. The risk of bias was analyzed using the PEDro scale. Data were summarized descriptively and through meta-analysis (pain intensity and disability). In the meta-analysis, eligible studies were combined while considering clinical and methodological homogeneity. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) criteria.

Results

A total of 5 randomized controlled trials were included, totaling 894 participants (447 allocated to the mHealth group and 445 to the usual care group), and they had similar methodological structure and interventions. Follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months. The studies did not demonstrate significant differences for pain intensity (mean difference -0.86, 95% CI -2.29 to 0.58; P=.15) and disability (standardized mean difference -0.24, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.20; P=.14) when comparing mHealth and usual care. All studies showed biases, with emphasis on nonconcealed allocation and nonblinding of the outcome evaluator. The certainty of evidence was rated as low for the analyzed outcomes.

Conclusions

mHealth alone was no more effective than usual care or no treatment in improving pain intensity and disability in individuals with low back pain. Due to the biases found and the low certainty of evidence, the evidence remains inconclusive, and future quality clinical trials are needed.

Impact of an AI app-based exercise program for people with low back pain compared to standard care: A longitudinal cohort-study

Background

Low Back Pain (LBP) is a common health problem worldwide. In recent years, the use of mobile applications for the treatment of various diseases has increased, due to the Corona pandemic.

Objective

The aim of this study is to investigate the extent to which artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted exercise recommendations can reduce pain and pain-related impairments in daily life for patients with LBP, compared to standard care.

Methods

To answer the research question, an 8-week app-based exercise program was conducted in the intervention group. To measure the influence of the exercise program, pain development and pain-related impairment in daily life have been evaluated. A so-called rehabilitation sports group served as the control group. The main factors for statistical analysis were factor time and group comparison. For statistical calculations, a mixed analysis of variance for pain development was conducted. A separate check for confounders was made. For pain impairment in daily life nonparametric tests with the mean of change between the time points are conducted.

Results

The intervention group showed a reduction in pain development of 1.4 points compared to an increase of 0.1 points in the control group on the numeric rating scale. There is a significant interaction of time and group for pain development. Regarding pain-related impairments in daily life, the intervention group has a reduction of the oswestry disability index scores by 3.8 points compared to an increase of 2.3 in the control group. The biggest differences become apparent 8 weeks after the start of treatment. The significant results have a medium to strong effect.

Conclusion

The results shown here suggest that the use of digital AI-based exercise recommendations in patients with LBP leads to pain reduction and a reduction in pain-related impairments in daily living compared to traditional group exercise therapy.

App-Based Rehabilitation in Back Pain, a Systematic Review

Smartphones and their associated applications are used frequently by patients and clinicians alike. Despite the technology being widely accessible, their use to aid in rehabilitation is yet to be adopted. The SARS CoV-2 pandemic has presented an opportunity to expedite their integration given the difficulty patients currently have in accessing healthcare. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review on the use of smartphone rehabilitation applications compared to standard physiotherapy for back pain. We conducted a search of Medline/Pubmed and google databases using the search terms [APP] AND [[Orthopaedic] OR [Neurosurgery]], following the PRISMA guidelines. All prospective studies investigating rehabilitation applications for back pain or following spine surgery were included. A total of nine studies met the inclusion criteria which investigated 7636 patients, of which 92.4% were allocated to the interventional group (n = 7055/7636) with a follow up of 4 weeks to 6 months. All except one study reported on patients experiencing back pain on average for 19.6 ± 11.6 months. The VAS-pain score was presented in all studies without significance between the interventional and control group (p = 0.399 before and p = 0.277 after intervention). Only one research group found significantly higher improvement in PROMs for the application group, whereas the remaining showed similar results compared to the control group. Using application-based rehabilitation programs provides an easily accessible alternative or substitute to traditional physiotherapy for patients with back pain. Given that smartphones are so prevalent in activities in our daily lives, this will enhance and improve rehabilitation if patients are self-dedicated and compliant.

Sociotechnical Factors Affecting Patients' Adoption of Mobile Health Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Mobile health (mHealth) tools have emerged as a promising health care technology that may contribute to cost savings, better access to care, and enhanced clinical outcomes; however, it is important to ensure their acceptance and adoption to harness this potential. Patient adoption has been recognized as a key challenge that requires further exploration.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to systematically investigate the literature to understand the factors affecting patients' adoption of mHealth tools by considering sociotechnical factors (from technical, social, and health perspectives).

METHODS

A structured search was completed following the participants, intervention, comparators, and outcomes framework. We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and SAGE databases for studies published between January 2011 and July 2021 in the English language, yielding 5873 results, of which 147 studies met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook were followed to ensure a systematic process. Extracted data were analyzed using NVivo (QSR International), with thematic analysis and narrative synthesis of emergent themes.

RESULTS

The technical factors affecting patients' adoption of mHealth tools were categorized into six key themes, which in turn were divided into 20 subthemes: usefulness, ease of use, data-related, monetary factors, technical issues, and user experience. Health-related factors were categorized into six key themes: the disease or health condition, the care team's role, health consciousness and literacy, health behavior, relation to other therapies, integration into patient journey, and the patients' insurance status. Social and personal factors were divided into three key clusters: demographic factors, personal characteristics, and social and cultural aspects; these were divided into 19 subthemes, highlighting the importance of considering these factors when addressing potential barriers to mHealth adoption and how to overcome them.

CONCLUSIONS

This review builds on the growing body of research that investigates patients' adoption of mHealth services and highlights the complexity of the factors affecting adoption, including personal, social, technical, organizational, and health care aspects. We recommend a more patient-centered approach by ensuring the tools' fit into the overall patient journey and treatment plan, emphasizing inclusive design, and warranting comprehensive patient education and support. Moreover, empowering and mobilizing clinicians and care teams, addressing ethical data management issues, and focusing on health care policies may facilitate adoption.

eHealth Interventions to Support Self-Management in People With Musculoskeletal Disorders, "eHealth: It's TIME"-A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

eHealth-mediated interventions have been proposed as one option to support self-management in those with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). This scoping review aimed to chart the evidence regarding eHealth modalities, musculoskeletal diagnosis, and outcomes of eHealth-mediated self-management support interventions in persons with MSDs and identify any gaps within the literature.

METHODS

Six electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), 7 grey literature sources (eg, OpenGrey), and reference and citation lists of included studies were searched from database inception to July 2020. Published studies of adult participants with a MSD utilizing an eHealth intervention to support self-management were included. Studies were limited to those published in English. Two reviewers independently screened all studies. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and reviewed by another reviewer.

RESULTS

After screening 3377 titles and abstracts followed by 176 full texts, 87 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The majority were published in the last 5 years (n = 48; 55%), with almost one-third originating in the United States (n = 28; 32%). The most common eHealth modality type was internet based (n = 22; 35%), with almost one-half (n = 41; 47%) of the included studies involving participants with widespread musculoskeletal symptoms. The most commonly reported outcomes were related to body functions (ie, pain intensity) (n = 67; 45%), closely followed by activities and participation (ie, function) (n = 65; 44%), with environmental factors (ie, health care utilization) the least commonly reported (n = 17; 20%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variation within the eHealth-mediated self-management support intervention literature. Research is needed on the role of eHealth-mediated self-management support interventions across a broad range of MSDs to guide clinical practice.

IMPACT

This scoping review has identified gaps in the literature relating to specific eHealth modalities, musculoskeletal diagnoses, and health care utilization data, which should guide future research.

Implementation of telerehabilitation in Austrian outpatient physiotherapy – A qualitative study / Implementierung von Telerehabilitation in der ambulanten Physiotherapie in Österreich – Eine qualitative Studie

Background

New technologies, for example, telerehabilitation (TR) tools, can support physiotherapists’ work. Even though studies have demonstrated their potential, TR is not yet fully implemented in Austrian outpatient physiotherapy. As a result of the Coronavirus pandemic and the associated lockdowns, physiotherapists in Austria were confronted with the challenge of offering therapies without physical contact. This study aims to investigate opinions and experiences of physiotherapists in Austria regarding TR and its implementation in different clinical fields.

Methods

A qualitative research design with expert interviews and a focus group discussion were conducted. Data were analysed using content analysis. The categories were formed following a deductive-inductive approach.

Results

The interview partners considered opportunities for using synchronous TR in internal medicine as well as orthopaedics and traumatology, especially in later, exercise-dominated stages. In addition, using TR can be supportive for patient education. In the field of neurology, synchronous TR is viewed with some criticism, especially when used for people with severe neuropsychological disorders. Asynchronous TR is considered useful across all disciplines and could support physical therapy from the first therapy session and throughout the treatment. Important questions regarding liability, billing, or data protection still need to be clarified. Interdisciplinary approaches in TR should also be pursued to improve care.

Conclusion

The use of asynchronous TR in addition to regular physiotherapy is seen as promising in all clinical fields. In general, when implementing TR, the needs and requirements of different fields should be considered. Moreover, various framework conditions still need to be clarified for further implementation of TR.

Digital Therapeutic Care and Decision Support Interventions for People With Low Back Pain: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of worldwide years lost because of disability, with a tremendous economic burden for health care systems. Digital therapeutic care (DTC) programs provide a scalable, universally accessible, and low-cost approach to the multidisciplinary treatment of LBP. Moreover, novel decision support interventions such as personalized feedback messages, push notifications, and data-driven activity recommendations amplify DTC by guiding the user through the program while aiming to increase overall engagement and sustainable behavior change.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to synthesize recent scientific literature on the impact of DTC apps for people with LBP and outline the implementation of add-on decision support interventions, including their effect on user retention and attrition rates.

METHODS

We searched bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, from March 1, 2016, to October 15, 2020, in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and conducted this review based on related previously published systematic reviews. Besides randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we also included study designs with the evidence level of at least a retrospective comparative study. This enables the consideration of real-world user-generated data and provides information regarding the adoption and effectiveness of DTC apps in a real-life setting. For the appraisal of the risk of bias, we used the Risk of Bias 2 Tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions Tool for the RCTs and nonrandomized trials, respectively. The included studies were narratively synthesized regarding primary and secondary outcome measures, DTC components, applied decision support interventions, user retention, and attrition rates.

RESULTS

We retrieved 1388 citations, of which 12 studies are included in this review. Of the 12 studies, 6 (50%) were RCTs and 6 (50%) were nonrandomized trials. In all included studies, lower pain levels and increased functionality compared with baseline values were observed in the DTC intervention group. A between-group comparison revealed significant improvements in pain and functionality levels in 67% (4/6) of the RCTs. The study population was mostly homogeneous, with predominantly female, young to middle-aged participants of normal to moderate weight. The methodological quality assessment revealed moderate to high risks of biases, especially in the nonrandomized trials.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrates the benefits of DTC for people with LBP. There is also evidence that decision support interventions benefit overall engagement with the app and increase participants' ability to self-manage their recovery process. Finally, including retrospective evaluation studies of real-world user-generated data in future systematic reviews of digital health intervention trials can reveal new insights into the benefits, challenges, and real-life adoption of DTC programs.

Scope, context and quality of telerehabilitation guidelines for physical disabilities: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To identify the available guidance and training to implement telerehabilitation movement assessments for people (adults and children) with a physical disability, including those recovering from COVID-19.

DESIGN

Rapid scoping review.

INCLUDED SOURCES AND ARTICLES

PubMed, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro, UK Health Forum, WHO, National Archives and NHS England were searched using the participant-concept-context framework from 2015 to August 2020. Primary studies that recruited individuals with physical disabilities and guidance documents aimed at providers to implement movement-related telerehabilitation were included.

RESULTS

23 articles (11 primary research studies, 3 systematic reviews and 9 guidance documents) were included out of 7857 that were identified from the literature search. Two main issues were found: (1) telerehabilitation guidance (from both research studies and guidance documents) was not specific to movement-related assessment and (2) most primary research studies provided neither guidance nor training of movement-specific assessment to practitioners. Of the COVID-19 related guidance, two articles reported COVID-19 management that only referred to identifying COVID-19 status without references to specific movement-related guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

Telerehabilitation guidance and training have existed pre-COVID-19, yet the lack of specific movement-related information and provider support is surprising. This gap must be addressed to optimise effective implementation of remote assessments for those with physical disabilities.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: osf.io/vm6sp.

A Discussion on Different Approaches for Prescribing Physical Interventions - Four Roads Lead to Rome, but Which One Should We Choose?

It is well recognized that regular physical exercise has positive effects on physical and mental health. To use the beneficial health effects of physical exercise, there are worldwide movements encouraging health care providers to include physical exercise in their care and treatments strategies. However, a crucial point in administering the "exercise polypill" is the dosing and, in turn, the prescription of the physical intervention (PI). In this perspective article, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to prescribe PI. In this context, we also highlight outstanding questions and potential areas of opportunity for further investigations.