5 research outputs found

    The effectiveness of problem solving therapy for stroke patients: Study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background: Coping style is one of the determinants of health-related quality of life after stroke. Stroke patients make less use of active problem-oriented coping styles than other brain damaged patients. Coping styles can be influenced by means of intervention. The primary aim of this study is to investigate if Problem Solving Therapy is an effective group intervention for improving coping style and health-related quality of life in stroke patients. The secondary aim is to determine the effect of Problem Solving Therapy on depression, social participation, health care consumption, and to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Methods/design: We strive to include 200 stroke patients in the outpatient phase of rehabilitation treatment, using a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial with one year follow-up. Patients in the intervention group will receive Problem Solving Therapy in addition to the standard rehabilitation program. The intervention will be provided in an open group design, with a continuous flow of patients. Primary outcome measures are coping style and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcome measures are depression, social participation, health care consumption, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Discussion: We designed our study as close to the implementation in practice as possible, using a pragmatic randomized trial and open group design, to represent a realistic estimate of the effectiveness of the intervention. If effective, Problem Solving Therapy is an inexpensive, deliverable and sustainable group intervention for stroke rehabilitation programs.Trial registration: Nederlands Trial Register, NTR2509

    Paediatric surgery for childhood cancer: Lasting experiences and needs of children and parents

    Full text link
    Objective: Surgery for paediatric cancer presents many stresses on patients and families. The authors aimed to understand the long-term impact of childhood cancer surgery on survivors and parents. Methods: The study recruited participants from 11 Australia/New Zealand hospitals for telephone interviews. The authors used descriptive statistics to analyse participants’ quantitative distress ratings and conducted thematic analysis of shared surgical experiences and needs. Results: Of 32 participants (n = 17 survivors, n = 15 parents), survivors’ mean age at surgery was 6.9 (SD = 5.17) and parents’ children were 2.1 years old (SD = 1.41) at time of surgery. Survivors had surgery on average 15.2 years ago (SD = 6.72) and parents’ children 11.5 years ago (SD = 3.94). Parents and survivors rated surgery as highly distressing. Pre-operatively, survivors recalled experiencing fear and pain mainly associated with pre-operative procedures. Post-operatively, survivors reported immobility and some lasting behavioural disturbances. Parents described pre- and intra-operative anxiety and stress and some lasting post-operative psychological disturbances. Experiences appeared to improve with clear/consistent communication from hospital staff, proximity to hospital, and with support for parents and children post-operatively. Conclusions: Surgical treatment for childhood cancer can have a lasting impact for survivors and parents. Better information provision may improve families’ surgical experience whilst reducing anxiety, distress and physical discomfort
    corecore