The educational needs of people with systemic sclerosis: a cross-sectional study using the Dutch version of the Educational Needs Assessment Tool (D-ENAT)

© 2015, The Author(s). The Dutch Educational Needs Assessment Tool (D-ENAT) systematically assesses educational needs of patients with rheumatic diseases. The present study aims to describe the educational needs of Dutch patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). The D-ENAT was sent to 155 SSc patients registered at the outpatient clinic of a university hospital. The D-ENAT consists of 39 items in seven domains. “Each domain has different number of items therefore we normalized each domain score: (domain score/maximum)×100) and expressed in percentage to enable comparisons between domains.” A total D-ENAT score (0–156) is calculated by summing all 39 items. In addition, age, disease duration, gender, educational level, present information need (yes/no) and information need (1–4; wanting to know nothing–everything) were recorded. Univariate regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with the D-ENAT scores. The response rate was 103 out of 155 (66%). The mean % of educational needs scores (0–100%; lowest–highest) were 49% for “D-ENAT total score,” 46% for “Managing pain,” 41% for “Movement,” 43% for “Feelings,” 59% for “Disease process,” 44% for “Treatments from health professionals,” 61% for “Self-help measures” and 51% for “Support systems.” No associations between the D-ENAT total score and age, disease duration, gender and educational level were found. The D-ENAT demonstrated its ability to identify educational needs of Dutch SSc patients. SSc patients demonstrated substantial educational needs, especially in the domains: “Disease process” and “Self-help measures.” The validity and practical applicability of the D-ENAT to make an inventory of SSc patients’ educational needs require further investigation

Adoption of eHealth for Ambulatory Geriatric Rehabilitation

Presentatie gegeven tijdens het congres Supporting Health by Technology (12-13 may - Groningen

Niet omdat het kan, maar omdat het moet : Innovatie van poliklinische revalidatiezorg ten tijde van COVID-19

Tijdens de eerste golf van de COVID-19 pandemie hebben veel revalidatiecentra hun zorg noodgedwongen anders in moeten richten en daarbij gebruik gemaakt van e-health. Dit heeft naast de borging van de voortgang van zorg ook veel kennis opgeleverd over zorginnovatie. De ervaringen van de patiënten van Basalt met zorg op afstand willen wij graag delen

The patient perspective on the use of information and communication technologies and e-health in rehabilitation

Introduction: Success of e-health relies on the extent to which the related technology, such as the electronic device, is accepted by its users. However, there has been limited research on the patients’ perspective on use of e-health-related technology in rehabilitation care. Objective: To explore the usage of common electronic devices among rehabilitation patients with access to email and investigate their preferences regarding their usage in rehabilitation. Methods: Adult patients who were admitted for inpatient and/or outpatient rehabilitation and were registered with an email address were invited to complete an electronic questionnaire regarding current and preferred use of information and communication technologies in rehabilitation care. Results: 190 out of 714 invited patients completed the questionnaire, 94 (49%) female, mean age 49 years (SD 16). 149 patients (78%) used one or more devices every day, with the most frequently used devices were: PC/laptop (93%), smartphone (57%) and tablet (47%). Patients mostly preferred to use technology for contact with health professionals (mean 3.15, SD 0.79), followed by access to their personal record (mean 3.09, SD 0.78) and scheduling appointments with health professionals (mean 3.07, SD 0.85). Conclusion: Most patients in rehabilitation used one or more devices almost every day and wish to use these devices in rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.135830

Prognostic factors for change in self-reported anxiety and depression in spondyloarthritis patients : data from the population-based SpAScania cohort from southern Sweden

OBJECTIVES: Anxiety and depression symptoms are more common in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) than in the general population. This study describes prognostic factors for change in self-reported anxiety and depression over 2 years in a well-defined SpA cohort. METHOD: In 2009, 3716 adult patients from the SpAScania cohort received a postal questionnaire to assess quality of life (QoL) and physical and mental functioning. A follow-up survey was performed in 2011. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale indicated 'no', 'possible', and 'probable' cases of anxiety and depression. Transitions between the three different categories were analysed and logistic regression analysis determined prognostic factors (patient-reported outcomes and characteristics) for improvement or deterioration. RESULTS: In total, 1629 SpA patients responded to both surveys (44%) (mean ± SD age 55.8 ± 13.1 years, disease duration 14.6 ± 11.7 years); 27% had ankylosing spondylitis, 55% psoriatic arthritis, and 18% undifferentiated SpA. The proportion of patients reporting possible/probable anxiety decreased from 31% to 25% over 2 years, while no changes in depression were seen. Factors associated with deterioration or improvement were largely the same for anxiety as for depression: fatigue, general health, QoL, level of functioning, disease activity, and self-efficacy. However, reporting chronic widespread pain (CWP) at baseline increased the risk of becoming depressed and decreased the probability of recovering from anxiety. CONCLUSION: Self-reported anxiety and depression is common and fairly stable over time in SpA patients. The association between mental health and CWP indicates that both comorbidities need to be acknowledged and treated in the clinic. © 2018 The Author(s)

Fatigue, participation and quality of life in adolescents and young adults with acquired brain injury in an out patient rehabilitation cohort

Purpose: To study the association between fatigue and participation and QoL after acquired brain injury (ABI) in adolescents and young adults (AYAs). Materials & Methods: Cross-sectional study with AYAs aged 14–25 years, diagnosed with ABI. The PedsQL™ Multidimensional Fatigue Scale, Child & Adolescent Scale of Participation, and PedsQL™4.0 Generic Core Scales were administered. Results: Sixty-four AYAs participated in the study, 47 with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Median age at admission was 17.6 yrs, 0.8 yrs since injury. High levels of fatigue (median 44.4 (IQR 34.7, 59.7)), limited participation (median 82.5 (IQR 68.8, 92.3)), and diminished QoL (median 63.0 (IQR 47.8, 78.3)) were reported. More fatigue was significantly associated with more participation restrictions (β 0.64, 95%CI 0.44, 0.85) and diminished QoL (β 0.87, 95%CI 0.72, 1.02). Conclusions: AYAs with ABI reported high levels of fatigue, limited participation and diminished quality of life with a significant association between fatigue and both participation and QoL. Targeting fatigue in rehabilitation treatment could potentially improve participation and QoL

What works and why in the implementation of eRehabilitation after stroke - a process evaluation

Background: Implementation of an eRehabilitation intervention named Fit After Stroke @Home (Fast@home) – including cognitive/physical exercise applications, activity-tracking, psycho-education – after stroke resulted in health-related improvements. This study investigated what worked and why in the implementation. Methods: Implementation activities (information provision, integration of Fast@home, instruction and motivation) were performed for 14 months and evaluated, using the Medical Research Council framework for process evaluations which consists of three evaluation domains (implementation, mechanisms of impact and contextual factors). Implementation activities were evaluated by field notes/surveys/user data, it’s mechanisms of impact by surveys and contextual factors by field notes/interviews among 11 professionals. Surveys were conducted among 51 professionals and 73 patients. User data (n=165 patients) were extracted from the eRehabilitation applications. Results: Implementation activities were executed as planned. Of the professionals trained to deliver the intervention (33 of 51), 25 (75.8%) delivered it. Of the 165 patients, 82 (49.7%) were registered for Fast@home, with 54 patient (65.8%) using it. Mechanisms of impact showed that professionals and patients were equally satisfied with implementation activities (median score 7.0 [IQR 6.0–7.75] versus 7.0 [6.0–7.5]), but patients were more satisfied with the intervention (8.0 [IQR 7.0–8.0] versus 5.5 [4.0–7.0]). Guidance by professionals was seen as most impactful for implementation by patients and support of clinical champions and time given for training by professionals. Professionals rated the integration of Fast@home as insufficient. Contextual factors (financial cutbacks and technical setbacks) hampered the implementation. Conclusion: Main improvements of the implementation of eRehabilitation are related to professionals’ perceptions of the intervention, integration of eRehabilitation and contextual factors

Teachers’ and students’ perceptions on barriers and facilitators for eHealth education in the curriculum of functional exercise and physical therapy: A focus groups study

Background: Despite the growing importance of eHealth it is not consistently embedded in the curricula of functional exercise and physical therapy education. Insight in barriers and facilitators for embedding eHealth in education is required for the development of tailored strategies to implement eHealth in curricula. This study aims to identify barriers/facilitators perceived by teachers and students of functional exercise/physical therapy for uptake of eHealth in education. Methods: A qualitative study including six focus groups (two with teachers/four with students) was conducted to identify barriers/facilitators. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Reported barriers and facilitators were identified, grouped and classified using a generally accepted framework for implementation including the following categories: innovation, individual teacher/student, social context, organizational context and political and economic factors. Results: Teachers (n = 11) and students (n = 24) of functional exercise/physical therapy faculties of two universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands participated in the focus groups. A total of 109 barriers/facilitators were identified during the focus groups. Most related to the Innovation category (n = 26), followed by the individual teacher (n = 22) and the organization (n = 20). Teachers and students identified similar barriers/facilitators for uptake of eHealth in curricula: e.g. unclear concept of eHealth, lack of quality and evidence for eHealth, (lack of) capabilities of students/teachers on how to use eHealth, negative/positive attitude of students/teachers towards eHealth. Conclusion: The successful uptake of eHealth in the curriculum of functional exercise/physical therapists needs a systematic multi-facetted approach considering the barriers and facilitators for uptake identified from the perspective of teachers and students. A relatively large amount of the identified barriers and facilitators were overlapping between teachers and students. Starting points for developing effective implementation strategies can potentially be found in those overlapping barriers and facilitators

Why the uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult: A focus group study in the Netherlands

The uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is insufficient, despite the growing availability. The aim of this study was to explore which factors influence the uptake of eRehabilitation in stroke rehabilitation, among stroke patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals. A qualitative focus group study with eight focus groups (6–8 participants per group) was conducted: six with stroke patients/informal caregivers and two with healthcare professionals involved in stroke rehabilitation (rehabilitation physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, managers). Focus group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed in full, and analyzed by direct content analysis using the implementation model of Grol. Results Thirty-two patients, 15 informal caregivers, and 13 healthcare professionals were included. A total of 14 influencing factors were found, grouped to 5 of the 6 levels of the implementation model of Grol (Innovation, Organizational context, Individual patient, Individual professional, and Economic and political context). Most quotes of patients, informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals were classified to factors at the level of the Innovation (e.g., content, attractiveness, and feasibility of eRehabilitation programs). In addition, for patients, relatively many quotes were classified to factors at the level of the individual patient (e.g., patients characteristics as fatigue and the inability to understand ICT-devices), and for healthcare professionals at the level of the organizational context (e.g., having sufficient time and the fit with existing processes of care). Although there was a considerable overlap in reported factors between patients/informal caregivers and healthcare professionals when it concerns eRehabilitation as innovation, its seems that patients/informal caregivers give more emphasis to factors related to the individual patient, whereas healthcare professionals emphasize the importance of factors related to the organizational context. This difference should be considered when developing an implementation strategy for patients and healthcare professionals separately. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0827-

Factors associated with willingness to use eRehabilitation after stroke: A cross-sectional study among patients, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals

Objective: Despite the increasing availability of eRehabilitation, its use remains limited. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with willingness to use eRehabilitation. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Subjects: Stroke patients, informal caregivers, health-care professionals. Methods: The survey included personal characteristics, willingness to use eRehabilitation (yes/no) and barri-ers/facilitators influencing this willingness (4-point scale). Barriers/facilitators were merged into factors. The association between these factors and willingness to use eRehabilitation was assessed using logistic regression analyses. Results: Overall, 125 patients, 43 informal caregivers and 105 healthcare professionals participated in the study. Willingness to use eRehabilitation was positively influenced by perceived patient benefits (e.g. reduced travel time, increased motivation, better outcomes), among patients (odds ratio (OR) 2.68; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.34–5.33), informal caregivers (OR 8.98; 95% CI 1.70–47.33) and healthcare professionals (OR 6.25; 95% CI 1.17–10.48). Insufficient knowledge decreased willingness to use eRehabilitation among pa-tients (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17–0.74). Limitations of the study include low response rates and possible response bias. Conclusion: Differences were found between patients/informal caregivers and healthcare professionals. Ho-wever, for both groups, perceived benefits of the use of eRehabilitation facilitated willingness to use eRehabili-tation. Further research is needed to determine the benefits of such programs, and inform all users about the potential benefits, and how to use eRehabilitation. Lay Abstract The use of digital eRehabilitation after stroke (e.g. in serious games, e-consultation and education) is increasing. However, the use of eRehabilitation in daily practice is limited. As a first step in increasing the use of eRehabilitation in stroke care, this study examined which factors influence the willingness of stroke patients, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals to use eRehabilitation. Beliefs about the benefits of eRehabilitation were found to have the largest positive impact on willingness to use eRehabilitation. These benefits included reduced travel time, increased adherence to therapy or motivation, and better health outcomes. The willingness to use eRehabilitation is limited by a lack of knowledge about how to use eRehabilitation