Search

BackgroundInternet-administered cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) has been demonstrated to be an effective intervention for adults with depression and/or anxiety and is recommended in national guidelines for provision within Swedish primary care. However, the number and type of organizations that have implemented ICBT within primary care in Sweden is currently unclear. Further, there is a lack of knowledge concerning barriers and facilitators to ICBT implementation. ObjectiveThe two primary objectives were to identify and describe primary care organizations providing ICBT in Sweden and compare decision makers’ (ie, directors of primary care organizations) views on barriers and facilitators to implementation of ICBT among ICBT implementers (ie, organizations that offered ICBT) and nonimplementers (ie, organizations that did not offer ICBT). MethodsAn online survey based on a checklist for identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation was developed and made accessible to decision makers from all primary care organizations in Sweden. The survey consisted of background questions (eg, provision of ICBT and number of persons working with ICBT) and barriers and facilitators relating to the following categories: users, therapists, ICBT programs, organizations, and wider society. ResultsThe participation rate was 35.75% (404/1130). The majority (250/404, 61.8%) of participants were health care center directors and had backgrounds in nursing. Altogether, 89.8% (363/404) of the participating organizations provided CBT. A minority (83/404, 20.5%) of organizations offered ICBT. Most professionals delivering ICBT were psychologists (67/83, 80%) and social workers (31/83, 37%). The majority (61/83, 73%) of organizations had 1 to 2 persons delivering ICBT interventions. The number of patients treated with ICBT during the last 12 months was 1 to 10 in 65% (54/83) of the organizations, ranging between 1 and 400 treated patients across the whole sample. There were 9 significant (P

Moving into a nursing home is often an unavoidable life event for older people living with dementia. It is associated with negative emotions and outcomes. Research capturing their perspectives is scarce. This study aims to identify how older people living with dementia perceive a potential life in a nursing home and to understand their (future) care wishes. This study is part of the European TRANS-SENIOR research network. The study followed a qualitative phenomenological methodology. Semi-structured interviews with 18 community-dwelling older people living with dementia were conducted between August 2018 and October 2019 (METCZ20180085). A stepwise interpretive phenomenological analysis was performed. The majority of community-dwelling older people feared the idea of potentially moving to a nursing home. The participants associated a possible move with negative perceptions and emotions. Additionally, this study emphasized the importance of knowledge of current and past experiences with care when identifying the participant's wishes. They wanted to remain (a) individuals, who are (b) autonomous and have (c) social contacts if they would move to a nursing home. This study showed how past and current care experiences can educate/inform healthcare professionals on the future care wishes of older people living with dementia. The results indicated that listening to the wishes, and life stories of people living with dementia could be a way of identifying 'a suitable time' to suggest a move to a nursing home. This could improve the transitional care process and adjustment to living in a nursing home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with intellectual disabilities are vulnerable to develop psychopathology (in particular anxiety) and related challenging behaviour. Method: A comparative multiple case study with an experimental and a control condition. Results: The application of the guideline showed a trend of decreases of internalizing problems (P = 0.07) and anxiety/depressed problems (P = 0.09). We found no statistically significant decreases of externalizing problems and no increases in perceived quality of life as compared with care as usual. Clients were not more satisfied with the support they received for coping with their emotional and behaviour problems. Conclusion: The application of the "Diagnostic Guideline for Anxiety and Challenging Behaviour" did not show statistically significant changes in externalizing problems and Quality of Life. Despite the small sample size of n = 59, we did find a trend in decreasing internalizing problems and anxiety/depressed problems. Further research into either or not confirming these trends is recommended.

Background Reducing sitting time as well as increasing physical activity in inactive people is beneficial for their health. This paper investigates the effectiveness of the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) programme to improve physical activity and sedentary time in male football fans, delivered through the professional football setting. Methods and findings A total of 1,113 men aged 30-65 with self-reported body mass index (BMI) [greater than or equal to]27 kg/m.sup.2 took part in a randomised controlled trial in 15 professional football clubs in England, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal. Recruitment was between September 19, 2015, and February 2, 2016. Participants consented to study procedures and provided usable activity monitor baseline data. They were randomised, stratified by club, to either the EuroFIT intervention or a 12-month waiting list comparison group. Follow-up measurement was post-programme and 12 months after baseline. EuroFIT is a 12-week, group-based programme delivered by coaches in football club stadia in 12 weekly 90-minute sessions. Weekly sessions aimed to improve physical activity, sedentary time, and diet and maintain changes long term. A pocket-worn device (SitFIT) allowed self-monitoring of sedentary time and daily steps, and a game-based app (MatchFIT) encouraged between-session social support. Primary outcome (objectively measured sedentary time and physical activity) measurements were obtained for 83% and 85% of intervention and comparison participants. Intention-to-treat analyses showed a baseline-adjusted mean difference in sedentary time at 12 months of -1.6 minutes/day (97.5% confidence interval [CI], -14.3-11.0; p = 0.77) and in step counts of 678 steps/day (97.5% CI, 309-1.048; p < 0.001) in favor of the intervention. There were significant improvements in diet, weight, well-being, self-esteem, vitality, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health in favor of the intervention group, but not in quality of life. There was a 0.95 probability of EuroFIT being cost-effective compared with the comparison group if society is willing to pay £1.50 per extra step/day, a maximum probability of 0.61 if society is willing to pay £1,800 per minute less sedentary time/day, and 0.13 probability if society is willing to pay £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). It was not possible to blind participants to group allocation. Men attracted to the programme already had quite high levels of physical activity at baseline (8,372 steps/day), which may have limited room for improvement. Although participants came from across the socioeconomic spectrum, a majority were well educated and in paid work. There was an increase in recent injuries and in upper and lower joint pain scores post-programme. In addition, although the five-level EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) is now the preferred measure for cost-effectiveness analyses across Europe, baseline scores were high (0.93), suggesting a ceiling effect for QALYs. Conclusion Participation in EuroFIT led to improvements in physical activity, diet, body weight, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health, but not in sedentary time at 12 months. Within-trial analysis suggests it is not cost-effective in the short term for QALYs due to a ceiling effect in quality of life. Nevertheless, decision-makers may consider the incremental cost for increase in steps worth the investment. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN-81935608., Author(s): Sally Wyke 1,*, Christopher Bunn 1, Eivind Andersen 2, Marlene N. Silva 3, Femke van Nassau 4, Paula McSkimming 5, Spyros Kolovos 6, Jason M. R. Gill 7, Cindy [...]

Introduction: This study investigated how patients with COVID‐19, telemonitoring (TM) teams, general practitioners (GPs) and primary care nurses in Belgium experienced remote patient monitoring (RPM) in 12 healthcare organizations, in relation to the patients' illness, health, and care needs, perceived quality of care, patient and health system outcomes, and implementation challenges. Design: A qualitative research approach was adopted, including focus group discussions and semi‐structured interviews. Methods: Four different groups of participants were interviewed, that is, patients (n = 17), TM teams (n = 27), GPs (n = 16), and primary care nurses (n = 12). An interview guide was drafted based on a literature review. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and NVivo was used for managing and analyzing the data. The QUAGOL method was used to guide the data analysis process and was adapted for the purpose of a thematic content analysis. Results: All participants agreed that RPM‐reassured patients. The overall perceived value of RPM for individual patients depended on how well the intervention matched with their needs. Patients who did not have the necessary language (Dutch/French speaking) and digital skills, who did not have the right equipment (smartphone or tablet), or who missed the necessary infrastructure (no internet coverage in their region) were often excluded. Remote patient monitoring also reassured healthcare professionals as it gave them information on a disease they had little knowledge about. Professionals involved in RPM experienced a high workload. All TM teams agreed that quality of data was a key factor to ensure an adequate follow‐up, but they differed in what they found important. The logistic management of RPM was a challenge because of the contagious character of COVID‐19, and the need for an effective information flow between the hospital team and primary care providers. Participants missed clarification about who was accountable for the care for patients in the projects. Primary care nurses and GPs missed access to RPM data. All agreed that the funding they received was not sufficient to cover all the costs associated with RPM. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals and patients perceive RPM as valuable and believe that the concept will have its place in the Belgium health system. However, current RPM practice is challenged by many barriers, and the sustainability of RPM implementation is low. Clinical relevance: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) was perceived as a valuable intervention for patients with COVID‐19, but there were important concerns about unequal access to care. While the technology for RPM is available, the sustainability of implementation is low because of concerns with data quality, challenging logistics within projects, lack of data integration and communication, and a lack of an overarching guiding framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]