Search

Objective ‘Better By Moving’ is a multifaceted intervention developed and implemented in collaboration with patients and healthcare professionals to improve physical activity in hospitalized adults. This study aimed to understand if, how and why ‘Better By Moving’ resulted in higher levels of physical activity by evaluating both outcomes and implementation process. Design Mixed-methods study informed by the Medical Research Council guidance. Setting Tertiary hospital. Participants Adult patients admitted to surgery, haematology, infectious diseases and cardiology wards, and healthcare professionals. Measures Physical activity was evaluated before and after implementation using the Physical Activity Monitor AM400 on one random day during hospital stay between 8 am and 8 pm. Furthermore, the time spent lying on bed, length of stay and discharge destination was investigated. The implementation process was evaluated using an audit trail, surveys and interviews. Results There was no significant difference observed in physical activity (median [IQR] 23 [12–51] vs 27 [17–55] minutes, P = 0.107) and secondary outcomes before-after implementation. The intervention components’ reach was moderate and adoption was low among patients and healthcare professionals. Patients indicated they perceived more encouragement from the environment and performed exercises more frequently, and healthcare professionals signalled increased awareness and confidence among colleagues. Support (priority, resources and involvement) was perceived a key contextual factor influencing the implementation and outcomes. Conclusion Although implementing ‘Better By Moving’ did not result in significant improvements in outcomes at our centre, the process evaluation yielded important insights that may improve the effectiveness of implementing multifaceted interventions aiming to improve physical activity during hospital stay.

Purpose: To identify healthcare professionals’ perspectives on key barriers to improving physical activity in hospitalized adult patients, and to identify solutions to overcome these barriers. Methods: We used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study design in a Dutch university hospital. A survey exploring 39 potential barriers was completed by 15 physicians/physician assistants, 106 nurses, four nursing assistants, and four physical therapists working on surgery, internal medicine, and cardiology wards. Next, three in-depth semi-structured focus groups–comprising 30 healthcare professionals–discussed the survey findings to identify key barriers and solutions. Focus group discussions were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Five themes were identified that described both the key barriers and the solutions to overcome these barriers. Healthcare professionals proposed several solutions, including clarifying the definition of physical activity, empowering patients to take responsibility for physical activity, giving physical therapists or physicians a prominent role in encouraging physical activity, and changing the hospital ward to entice patients to become physically active. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals need clear guidelines, roles, and responsibilities when it comes to physical activity. They also need personalized interventions that empower patients in physical activity. Finally, hospital wards should be designed and furnished so that patients are encouraged to be active.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION Many healthcare professionals want to sustainably improve physical activity in hospitalized adults. For this they need clear guidelines that not only define physical activity, but also describe the roles and responsibilities of all members of the medical team. Healthcare professionals need interventions that help to empower patients to take an active role in physical activity during hospital stay. Hospital wards should be designed and furnished so that patients are encouraged to be physically active.

PurposeTo determine which factors are associated with physical inactivity in hospitalized adults of all ages.MethodsA cross-sectional sample of 114 adults admitted to a gastrointestinal surgery, internal medicine or cardiology hospital ward (median age 60, length of stay 13 days) were observed during one random day from 8 am to 8 pm using wireless accelerometers and behavioral mapping protocols. Factors (e.g., comorbidities, self-efficacy, independence in mobility, functional restraints) were collected from medical records, surveys, and observations.ResultsPatients were physically active for median(IQR) 26 (13–52.3) min and were observed to lie in bed for 67.3%, sit for 25.2%, stand for 2.5%, and walk for 5.0% of the time. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that physical inactivity was 159.87% (CI = 89.84; 255.73) higher in patients dependent in basic mobility, and 58.88% (CI = 10.08; 129.33) higher in patients with a urinary catheter (adjusted R2 = 0.52). The fit of our multivariable regression analysis did not improve after adding hospital ward to the analysis (p > 0.05).ConclusionsIndependence in mobility and urine catheter presence are two important factors associated with physical inactivity in hospitalized adults of all ages, and these associations do not differ between hospital wards. Routine assessments of both factors may therefore help to identify physically inactive patients throughout the hospital.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONHealthcare professionals should be aware that physical inactivity during hospital stay may result into functional decline.Regardless of which hospital ward patients are admitted to, once patients require assistance in basic mobility or have a urinary catheter they are at risk of physical inactivity during hospital stay.Implementing routine assessments on the independence of basic mobility and urine catheter presence may therefore assist healthcare professionals in identifying physically inactive patients before they experience functional decline.

Background Admission to a hospital is often related with hospital-associated disabilities. Improving physical activity during hospitalization is considered effective to counteract hospital-associated disabilities, whereas many studies report on very low physical activity levels. Gradually developing and implementing interventions in cocreation with patients and health care professionals rather than implementing predefined interventions may be more effective in creating sustainable changes in everyday clinical practice. However, no studies have reported on the use of cocreation in the development and implementation of interventions aimed at improving physical activity. Objective This protocol presents a study that aims to investigate if interventions, which will be developed and implemented in cocreation, improve physical activity among patients in surgery, internal medicine, and cardiology hospital wards. The secondary aims are to investigate effectiveness in terms of the reduction in the time patients spend in bed, the length of hospital stay, and the proportion of patients going home after discharge. Methods The Better By Moving study takes place for 12 months at the following five different wards of a university hospital: two gastrointestinal and oncology surgery wards, one internal medicine hematology ward, one internal medicine infectious diseases ward, and one cardiology ward. The step-by-step implementation model of Grol and Wensing is used, and all interventions are developed and implemented in cocreation with health care professionals and patients. Outcome evaluation is performed across the different hospital wards and for each hospital ward individually. The primary outcome is the amount of physical activity in minutes assessed with the Physical Activity Monitor AM400 accelerometer in two individual groups of patients (preimplementation [n=110], and 13 months after the start of the implementation [n=110]). The secondary outcomes are time spent in bed measured using behavioral mapping protocols, and length of stay and discharge destination assessed using organizational data. A process evaluation using semistructured interviews and surveys is adopted to evaluate the implementation, mechanisms of impact, context, and perceived barriers and enablers. Results This study is ongoing. The first participant was enrolled in January 2018. The last outcome evaluation and process evaluation are planned for May and June 2020, respectively. Results are expected in April 2021. Conclusions This study will provide information about the effectiveness of developing and implementing interventions in cocreation with regard to improving physical activity in different subgroups of hospitalized patients in a university hospital. By following step-by-step implementation and by performing process evaluation, we will identify the barriers and enablers for implementation and describe the effect of new interventions on improving physical activity among hospitalized patients. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Register NL8480; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8480 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/19000

BACKGROUND Admission to a hospital is often related with hospital-associated disabilities. Improving physical activity during hospitalization is considered effective to counteract hospital-associated disabilities, whereas many studies report on very low physical activity levels. Gradually developing and implementing interventions in cocreation with patients and health care professionals rather than implementing predefined interventions may be more effective in creating sustainable changes in everyday clinical practice. However, no studies have reported on the use of cocreation in the development and implementation of interventions aimed at improving physical activity. OBJECTIVE This protocol presents a study that aims to investigate if interventions, which will be developed and implemented in cocreation, improve physical activity among patients in surgery, internal medicine, and cardiology hospital wards. The secondary aims are to investigate effectiveness in terms of the reduction in the time patients spend in bed, the length of hospital stay, and the proportion of patients going home after discharge. METHODS The Better By Moving study takes place for 12 months at the following five different wards of a university hospital: two gastrointestinal and oncology surgery wards, one internal medicine hematology ward, one internal medicine infectious diseases ward, and one cardiology ward. The step-by-step implementation model of Grol and Wensing is used, and all interventions are developed and implemented in cocreation with health care professionals and patients. Outcome evaluation is performed across the different hospital wards and for each hospital ward individually. The primary outcome is the amount of physical activity in minutes assessed with the Physical Activity Monitor AM400 accelerometer in two individual groups of patients (preimplementation [n=110], and 13 months after the start of the implementation [n=110]). The secondary outcomes are time spent in bed measured using behavioral mapping protocols, and length of stay and discharge destination assessed using organizational data. A process evaluation using semistructured interviews and surveys is adopted to evaluate the implementation, mechanisms of impact, context, and perceived barriers and enablers. RESULTS This study is ongoing. The first participant was enrolled in January 2018. The last outcome evaluation and process evaluation are planned for May and June 2020, respectively. Results are expected in April 2021. CONCLUSIONS This study will provide information about the effectiveness of developing and implementing interventions in cocreation with regard to improving physical activity in different subgroups of hospitalized patients in a university hospital. By following step-by-step implementation and by performing process evaluation, we will identify the barriers and enablers for implementation and describe the effect of new interventions on improving physical activity among hospitalized patients. CLINICALTRIAL Netherlands Trial Register NL8480; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8480 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/19000

Background and purpose The use of braces is widespread in patients with thoracolumbar fractures. The effectiveness of bracing, however, is controversial. We sought evidence for the effect of bracing in patients with traumatic thoracolumbar fractures based on outcome and length of hospital stay (LOS). Furthermore, we evaluated the incidence of complications of bracing. Methods An electronic search strategy with extensive MeSH headings was used in various databases to identify studies that compared bracing and non-bracing therapies. Two reviewers independently selected systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, and observational studies, and both assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data. Results No systematic reviews or RCTs were found. 7 retrospective studies were included. None of these studies showed an effect of bracing. Because of poor methodological quality, no best-evidence synthesis could be performed. One observational study was selected in which a complication of bracing was reported. Interpretation In the present literature, there is no evidence for the effectiveness of bracing in patients with traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. The lack of high-quality studies prevents relevant conclusions from being drawn.