Search

Abstract Background Most of the worldwide population is overweight and suffers from the resulting musculoskeletal comorbidities such as knee osteoarthritis or back pain. Practice guidelines recommend weight loss interventions for individuals suffering from these conditions. This systematic review investigated whether including a weight loss intervention in the musculoskeletal therapy of these individuals was cost-effective compared to administering the musculoskeletal therapy alone. Methods This study followed the PRISMA guidelines to systematically and independently search six databases and select full health economic evaluations published up to May 2024 from health care or societal perspectives according to predefined eligibility criteria. Cost data were standardised to 2023 Belgium Euros. The methodological quality was assessed using two health economic-specific checklists. Results The searches produced 5′305 references, of which 8 studies were selected for a total of 1′726 participants. The interventions consisted of different exercise plans and nutritional targets. Six values were in the north-eastern; leading to increased quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and higher costs; and two in the south-eastern quadrant of the cost-utility plane; leading to increased QALYs and lower costs. Two studies observed no differences in QALYs. Incremental cost utility ratios (ICUR) ranged from €13′580.10 to €34′412.40 per additional QALY from a healthcare perspective. From a societal perspective, the ICUR was €30′274.84. The included studies fulfilled 86 percent of the criteria in trial-based economic evaluations and 57 percent in model-based economic evaluations. The most common limitations of the studies were related to appropriate cost measures’ specifications, research questions, time horizon choices, and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions This systematic review showed weak but consistent evidence of cost-effectiveness for adding a weight loss intervention to musculoskeletal therapy for individuals with overweight, from either perspective. Further economic evaluations should evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Trial registration International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols INPLASY (2022,110,122).

Abstract Background Decision makers want to know if there is a financial benefit in investing scarce resources in occupational health management (OHM). Economic evaluations (EEs) of OHM-strategies try to answer this question. However, EEs of OHM-strategies which are strongly marked by quantitative methods may be limited by contextual, qualitative residuals. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (1) explore important economic dimensions of OHM and (2) to discuss the methods used in current EEs for measuring these dimensions. Methods In this explorative qualitative study, OHM-specialists were recruited via the Swiss organisation for health promotion. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were performed from November 2020 until May 2021. Videotapes were transcribed verbatim and organised by using an open coding strategy. Codes were clustered and synthesised as themes (i.e. the dimensions of EEs of OHM) through a mix of inductive and deductive content analysis. Member check with eight participants was accomplished to validate the results. Results The interviews had an average duration of 70.5 min and yielded 609 individual codes. These codes were merged into 28 subcategories which were finally categorised into five main themes: Understanding of OHM, costs, benefits, environmental aspects, and evaluation of OHM. Participants stated that the greater part of costs and benefits cannot be quantified or monetised and thus, considered in quantitative EEs. For example, they see a culture of health as key component for a successful OHM-strategy. However, the costs to establish such a culture as well as its benefits are hard to quantify. Participants were highly critical of the use of absenteeism as a linear measure of productivity. Furthermore, they explained that single, rare events, such as a change in leadership, can have significant impact on employee health. However, such external influence factors are difficult to control. Conclusions Participants perceived costs and benefits of OHM significantly different than how they are represented in current EEs. According to the OHM-specialists, most benefits cannot be quantified and thus, monetised. These intangible benefits as well as critical influencing factors during the process should be assessed qualitatively and considered in EEs when using them as a legitimation basis vis-à-vis decision makers.

Abstract Background Guided self-study (G-SS) can be used as a self-directed learning method or self-determined learning that fosters changes in knowledge and skills in a higher physiotherapy education setting. Until now, there has been no empirical evidence for the use of G-SS in higher physiotherapy education. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility to establish a G-SS program in a fulltime undergraduate physiotherapy degree course. In addition, the effectiveness of the G-SS was assessed on changes in knowledge and skills. Method Fifty-one first-semester physiotherapy students were randomly divided into a G-SS group or control group (CG). The G-SS group received six clinical cases. Each case was processed in an eight-day cycle. One week in advance, the clinical case were provided to the students electronically (day 1). The students prepared the cases in groups and were guided by the tutor during this preparation time (day 2 to 7). Group work results were presented and reflected on during a moderated plenum session at day 8. A priori criteria of success were defined based on empirical experience for the primary outcome parameters i) exposure, ii) responsiveness of students and iii) program differentiation. The secondary outcome was the total score in the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and written exams. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS. Results The responsiveness of students as willing to participate in the G-SS program was 23%, clearly below the a priori set 83%. No differences in program differentiation were found. G-SS as compared to the CG scored significantly better on OSCE (p = 0.003) and on the written exam (p = 0.004). Conclusion The results showed that this higher education G-SS program in its current form was not feasible. Slight modification of the study protocol (e.g. better time planning in the academic calendar) is needed to improve the student’s responsiveness. The adjustments to the timetable must allow the physiotherapy students to prepare the clinical cases under conditions of lower workload. G-SS has the potential to promote change in knowledge and skills in undergraduate physiotherapy students when students prepare and present the clinical case solutions and reflect upon their actions. Trial registration Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies, Registry ID: # 1726.1 Registered on February 26th, 2019.

Abstract Background Training with brain-computer interface (BCI) technology in the rehabilitation of patients after a stroke is rapidly developing. Numerous RCT investigated the effects of BCI training (BCIT) on recovery of motor and brain function in patients after stroke. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Cochrane library, and Embase in July 2018 and was repeated in March 2019. RCT or controlled clinical trials that included BCIT for improving motor and brain recovery in patients after a stroke were identified. Data were meta-analysed using the random-effects model. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence (95%CI) and 95% prediction interval (95%PI) were calculated. A meta-regression was performed to evaluate the effects of covariates on the pooled effect-size. Results In total, 14 studies, including 362 patients after ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke (cortical, subcortical, 121 females; mean age 53.0+/− 5.8; mean time since stroke onset 15.7+/− 18.2 months) were included. Main motor recovery outcome measure used was the Fugl-Meyer Assessment. Quantitative analysis showed that a BCI training compared to conventional therapy alone in patients after stroke was effective with an SMD of 0.39 (95%CI: 0.17 to 0.62; 95%PI of 0.13 to 0.66) for motor function recovery of the upper extremity. An SMD of 0.41 (95%CI: − 0.29 to 1.12) for motor function recovery of the lower extremity was found. BCI training enhanced brain function recovery with an SMD of 1.11 (95%CI: 0.64 to 1.59; 95%PI ranging from 0.33 to 1.89). Covariates such as training duration, impairment level of the upper extremity, and the combination of both did not show significant effects on the overall pooled estimate. Conclusion This meta-analysis showed evidence that BCI training added to conventional therapy may enhance motor functioning of the upper extremity and brain function recovery in patients after a stroke. We recommend a standardised evaluation of motor imagery ability of included patients and the assessment of brain function recovery should consider neuropsychological aspects (attention, concentration). Further influencing factors on motor recovery due to BCI technology might consider factors such as age, lesion type and location, quality of performance of motor imagery, or neuropsychological aspects. Trial Registration PROSPERO registration: CRD42018105832 .