Search

Background Regular physiotherapy with a physiotherapist experienced in the field is not feasible for many patients with haemophilia. We, therefore, developed a blended physiotherapy intervention for persons with haemophilic arthropathy (HA) (e-Exercise HA), integrating face-to-face physiotherapy with a smartphone application. Aim The aim of the study was to determine proof of concept of e- Exercise HA and to evaluate feasibility. Methods Proof of concept was evaluated by a single-case multiple baseline design. Physical activity (PA) was measured with an accelerometer during a baseline, intervention and post-intervention phase and analysed using visual inspection and a single case randomisation test. Changes in limitations in activities (Haemophilia Activities List [HAL]) and a General Perceived Effect (GPE) were evaluated between baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1) and 3 months post-intervention (T2) using Wilcoxson signed rank test. Feasibility was evaluated by the number of adverse events, attended sessions and open-ended questions. Results Nine patients with HA (90% severe, median age 57.5 (quartiles 50.5–63.3) and median HJHS 32 (quartiles 22–36)) were included. PA increased in two patients. HAL increased mean 15 (SD 9) points (p = .001) at T1, and decrease to mean +8 points (SD 7) (p = .012) at T2 compared to T0. At T1 and T2 8/9 participants scored a GPE > 3. Median 5 (range 4–7) face-to-face sessions were attended and a median 8 out of 12 information modules were viewed. No intervention-related bleeds were reported. Conclusion A blended physiotherapy intervention is feasible for persons with HA and the first indication of the effectiveness of the intervention in decreasing limitations in activities was observed.

Background Osteoarthritis is one of the most common chronic joint diseases, mostly affecting the knee or hip through pain, joint stiffness and decreased physical functioning in daily life. Regular physical activity (PA) can help preserve and improve physical functioning and reduce pain in patients with osteoarthritis. Interventions aiming to improve movement behaviour can be optimized by tailoring them to a patients’ starting point; their current movement behaviour. Movement behaviour needs to be assessed in its full complexity, and therefore a multidimensional description is needed. Objectives The aim of this study was to identify subgroups based on movement behaviour patterns in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis who are eligible for a PA intervention. Second, differences between subgroups regarding Body Mass Index, sex, age, physical functioning, comorbidities, fatigue and pain were determined between subgroups. Methods Baseline data of the clinical trial ‘e-Exercise Osteoarthritis’, collected in Dutch primary care physical therapy practices were analysed. Movement behaviour was assessed with ActiGraph GT3X and GT3X+ accelerometers. Groups with similar patterns were identified using a hierarchical cluster analysis, including six clustering variables indicating total time in and distribution of PA and sedentary behaviours. Differences in clinical characteristics between groups were assessed via Kruskall Wallis and Chi2 tests. Results Accelerometer data, including all daily activities during 3 to 5 subsequent days, of 182 patients (average age 63 years) with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis were analysed. Four patterns were identified: inactive & sedentary, prolonged sedentary, light active and active. Physical functioning was less impaired in the group with the active pattern compared to the inactive & sedentary pattern. The group with the prolonged sedentary pattern experienced lower levels of pain and fatigue and higher levels of physical functioning compared to the light active and compared to the inactive & sedentary. Conclusions Four subgroups with substantially different movement behaviour patterns and clinical characteristics can be identified in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. Knowledge about these subgroups can be used to personalize future movement behaviour interventions for this population. Trial registration Dutch clinical trial registration number of e-Exercise Osteoarthritis: NTR4224.

Background: The integration of digital applications within health care is called blended care. Introduction: Despite its potential, physiotherapists experience difficulty in determining which patie...

BACKGROUND Home-based exercise is an important part of physical therapy treatment for patients with low back pain. However, treatment effectiveness depends heavily on patient adherence to home-based exercise recommendations. Smartphone applications designed to support home-based exercise have the potential to support adherence to exercise recommendations and potentially improve treatment effects. A better understanding of patient perspectives on the use of smartphone applications to support home-based exercise during physical therapy treatment can assist physical therapists with optimal use and implementation of these applications in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to investigate patient perspectives on the acceptability, satisfaction, and performance of a smartphone application to support home-based exercise following recommendations from a physical therapist. METHODS Using a interpretivist phenomenology approach, nine patients with non-specific low back pain recruited from two primary care physical therapy practices were interviewed within two weeks after treatment ended. The Physitrack® smartphone application was used to support home-based exercise as part of treatment for all patients. Data was analyzed using a framework approach to assist with interpretation of the data. RESULTS Data-analysis revealed eleven categories distributed among the three themes “acceptability”, “satisfaction”, and “performance”. Patients are willing to accept the application as part of treatment when it is easy to use, benefits the patient, and when the physical therapist instructs the patient in its use. Satisfaction with the app is determined by the perceived support from the application when exercising at home and the perceived increase in adherence. The video and text instructions, reminder functions, and self-monitor functions are considered most important for performance during treatment. The patients did not view the Physitrack® app as a replacement for the physical therapist and relied on their therapist for instruction and support when needed. CONCLUSIONS Patients who used an app to support home-based exercise as part of treatment are accepting of the app when it is easy to use, benefits the patient, and the therapist instructs the patient in its use. Physical therapists using an app to support home-based exercise can use the findings from this study to more effectively support their patients when exercising at home during treatment.

Contains fulltext : 221004.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into patient participation in general practice by examining if and how patients' question-asking behaviour has changed over the years (2007-2016). METHODS: A random set of real-life video-recorded consultations collected in 2015-2016 (n = 437) was observed and compared with that of a former study in 2007-2008 (n = 533). Patients' question-asking behaviour was coded using an adapted RIAS protocol containing six categories: medical condition/therapeutic regimen; psychosocial; social context; lifestyle; ask for opinion doctor; practical. GPs and patients completed questionnaires about their background characteristics. Data were analysed using multi-level analysis. RESULTS: Patients asked fewer questions in 2016 than in 2007. The type of question-asking behaviour changed significantly: in particular medical questions decreased while practical questions increased. Less educated patients asked significantly more practical questions than higher educated patients. CONCLUSION: Contrary to our expectations, patients' question-asking has decreased in 2016 compared to 2007, while the average consultation length has increased. The type of questions shifted from medical to practical, especially in less educated patients. It seems that GPs' professional role has expanded over time, since patients nowadays ask their GP more non-medical questions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: GPs probably could continue facilitating patient involvement by more frequently using partnership-building and supportive communication.

Background Patients with glioma often suffer from cognitive deficits. Physical exercise has been effective in ameliorating cognitive deficits in older adults and neurological patients. This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) explored the possible impact of an exercise intervention, designed to improve cognitive functioning in glioma patients, regarding cognitive test performance and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods Thirty-four clinically stable patients with World Health Organization grades II/III glioma were randomized to a home-based remotely coached exercise group or an active control group. Patients exercised 3 times per week for 20–45 minutes, with moderate to vigorous intensity, during 6 months. At baseline and immediate follow-up, cognitive performance and PROs were assessed with neuropsychological tests and questionnaires, respectively. Linear regression analyses were used to estimate effect sizes of potential between-group differences in cognitive performance and PROs at 6 months. Results The exercise group (n = 21) had small- to medium-sized better follow-up scores than the control group (n = 11) on several measures of attention and information processing speed, verbal memory, and executive function, whereas the control group showed a slightly better score on a measure of sustained selective attention. The exercise group also demonstrated small- to medium-sized better outcomes on measures of self-reported cognitive symptoms, fatigue, sleep, mood, and mental health–related quality of life. Conclusions This small exploratory RCT in glioma patients provides a proof of concept with respect to improvement of cognitive functioning and PROs after aerobic exercise, and warrants larger exercise trials in brain tumor patients.

Background Generally, a significant portion of healthcare spending consists of out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses. Patients indicate that, in practice, there are often some OOP expenses, incurred when they receive medical care, which are unexpected for them and should have been taken into account when deciding on a course of action. Patients are often reliant on their GP and may, therefore, expect their GP to provide them with information about the costs of treatment options, taking into consideration their individual insurance plan. This also applies to the Netherlands, where OOP expenses increased rapidly over the years. In the current study, we observed the degree to which matters around patients’ insurance and OOP expenses are discussed in the Netherlands, using video recordings of consultations between patients and GPs. Methods Video recordings were collected from patient-GP consultations in 2015–2016. In 2015, 20 GPs and 392 patients from the eastern part of the Netherlands participated. In 2016, another eight GPs and 102 patients participated, spread throughout the Netherlands. The consultations were coded by three observers using an observation protocol. We achieved an almost perfect inter-rater agreement (Kappa = .82). Results In total, 475 consultations were analysed. In 9.5% of all the consultations, issues concerning patients’ health insurance and OOP expenses were discussed. The reimbursement of the cost of medication was discussed most often and patients’ current insurance and co-payments least often. In some consultations, the GP brought up the subject, while in others, the patient initiated the discussion. Conclusions While GPs may often be in the position to provide patients with information about treatment alternatives, few patients discuss the financial effects of their referral or prescription with their GP. This result complies with existing literature. Policy makers, GPs and insurers should think about how GPs and patients can be facilitated when considering the OOP expenses of treatment. There are several factors why this study, analysing video recordings of routine GP consultations in the Netherlands, is particularly relevant: Dutch GPs play a gatekeeper function; OOP expenses have increased relatively swiftly; and patients have both the right to decide on their treatment, and to choose a provider.

Background In the last decade many countries in Europe have implemented patient choice and managed competition. Policymakers assume that patients behave as active rational consumers and actively choose the provider that best fits their needs and preferences. With the introduction of managed competition, health insurers make up an important third party. On behalf of their customers, they purchase services and are allowed to contract selectively. Taking one’s insurance into account when choosing a provider became therefore increasingly important. There is, however, little evidence that patients make active choices in the way policymakers assumed. Instead, many patients visit the provider that is recommended by their general practitioner (GP). Aim This research aims to investigate the role of patients in choosing a healthcare provider at the point of referral and what the roles of the GP and the health insurer are in this process. Methods In 2015-2016, we videotaped Dutch GP-patient consultations. The videotaped consultations between 475 patients and 28 GPs in which the patient was referred to a healthcare provider were coded by three observers. We used an observation protocol to describe the referral process. Results Patients were divided into three groups: patients with little or no input, with some input and with much input. More than half of the patients (56%) seemed to have some or much input into the choice of a healthcare provider at point of referral by their GP. In almost half of the consults (47%) GPs asked for the patients’ preferences. The health insurance of a patient was rarely discussed at the point of referral. Conclusions More than half of the patients seem to have some or much input into the choice of a healthcare provider at point of referral by their GP. However, still half of the patients had little or no input. If patient choice remains important for policy, GPs should discuss more options with their patients and should also name the health insurer. Key messages In 53% of the consultations the GP does not ask the patient about the preference of a provider. The health insurance of a patient is rarely discussed during GP-patient consultations.

CHEERS Checklist. (PDF 571 kb)

CONSORT Cluster Randomized Trial checklist. (DOCX 34 kb)

Cost questionnaire (translation of Dutch version). (DOC 70 kb)

BACKGROUND Blended behavior change interventions combine therapeutic guidance with online care. This new way of delivering health care is supposed to stimulate patients with chronic somatic disorders in taking an active role in their disease management. However, knowledge about the effectiveness of blended behavior change interventions and how they should be composed is scattered. OBJECTIVE This comprehensive systematic review aimed to provide an overview of characteristics and effectiveness of blended behavior change interventions for patients with chronic somatic disorders. METHODS We searched for randomized controlled trials published from 2000 to April 2017 in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Study characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcome data were extracted. Studies were sorted based on their comparison group. A best-evidence synthesis was conducted to summarize the effectiveness. RESULTS A total of 25 out of the 29 included studies were of high quality. Most studies (n=21; 72%) compared a blended intervention with no intervention. The majority of interventions focused on changing pain behavior (n=17; 59%), and the other interventions focused on lifestyle change (n=12; 41%). In addition, 26 studies (90%) focused on one type of behavior, whereas 3 studies (10%) focused on multiple behaviors. A total of 23 studies (79%) mentioned a theory as basis for the intervention. The therapeutic guidance in most studies (n=18; 62%) was non face-to-face by using email, phone, or videoconferencing, and in the other studies (partly), it was face-to-face (n=11; 38%). In 26 studies (90%), the online care was provided via a website, and in 3 studies (10%) via an app. In 22 studies (76%), the therapeutic guidance and online care were integrated instead of two separate aspects. A total of 26 outcome measures were included in the evidence synthesis comparing blended interventions with no intervention: for the coping strategy catastrophizing, we found strong evidence for a significant effect. In addition, 1 outcome measure was included in the evidence synthesis comparing blended interventions with face-to-face interventions, but no evidence for a significant effect was found. A total of 6 outcome measures were included in the evidence synthesis comparing blended interventions with online interventions, but no evidence for a significant effect was found. CONCLUSIONS Blended behavior change interventions for patients with chronic somatic disorders show variety in the type of therapeutic guidance, the type of online care, and how these two delivery modes are integrated. The evidence of the effectiveness of blended interventions is inconsistent and nonsignificant for most outcome measures. Future research should focus on which type of blended intervention works for whom.

Additional file 1. Observation protocol.

Additional file 1. Observation protocol.