What is Important in E-health Interventions for Stroke Rehabilitation? A Survey Study among Patients, Informal Caregivers, and Health Professionals.

Incorporating user requirements in the design of e-rehabilitation interventions facilitates their implementation. However, insight into requirements for e-rehabilitation after stroke is lacking. This study investigated which user requirements for stroke e-rehabilitation are important to stroke patients, informal caregivers, and health professionals. The methodology consisted of a survey study amongst stroke patients, informal caregivers, and health professionals (physicians, physical therapists and occupational therapists). The survey consisted of statements about requirements regarding accessibility, usability and content of a comprehensive stroke e-health intervention (4-point Likert scale, 1=unimportant/4=important). The mean with standard deviation was the metric used to determine the importance of requirements. Patients (N=125), informal caregivers (N=43), and health professionals (N=105) completed the survey. The mean score of user requirements regarding accessibility, usability and content for stroke e-rehabilitation was 3.1 for patients, 3.4 for informal caregivers and 3.4 for health professionals.  Data showed that a large number of user requirements are important and should be incorporated into the design of stroke e-rehabilitation to facilitate their implementation.

Effects of de-implementation strategies aimed at reducing low-value nursing procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: In the last decade, there is an increasing focus on detecting and compiling lists of low-value nursing procedures. However, less is known about effective de-implementation strategie

Changes in Health-Related Quality of Life following Surgery in Patients with High-Grade Extremity Soft-Tissue Sarcoma:A Prospective Longitudinal Study

Introduction: Changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) during the diagnostic and treatment trajectory of high-grade extremity soft-tissue sarcoma (eSTS) has rarely been investigated for adults (18–65 y) and the elderly (aged ≥65 y), despite a potential variation in challenges from diverse levels of physical, social, or work-related activities. This study assesses HRQoL from time of diagnosis to one year thereafter among adults and the elderly with eSTS. Methods: HRQoL of participants from the VALUE-PERSARC trial (n = 97) was assessed at diagnosis and 3, 6 and 12 months thereafter, utilizing the PROMIS Global Health (GH), PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and EQ-5D-5L. Results: Over time, similar patterns were observed in all HRQoL measures, i.e., lower HRQoL scores than the Dutch population at baseline (PROMIS-PF:46.8, PROMIS GH-Mental:47.3, GH-Physical:46.2, EQ-5D-5L:0.76, EQ-VAS:72.6), a decrease at 3 months, followed by an upward trend to reach similar scores as the general population at 12 months (PROMIS-PF:49.9, PROMIS GH-Physical:50.1, EQ-5D-5L:0.84, EQ-VAS:81.5), except for the PROMIS GH-Mental (47.5), where scores remained lower than the general population mean (T = 50). Except for the PROMIS-PF, no age-related differences were observed. Conclusions: On average, eSTS patients recover well physically from surgery, yet the mental component demonstrates no progression, irrespective of age. These results underscore the importance of comprehensive care addressing both physical and mental health.</p

Changing behaviour 'more or less'-do theories of behaviour inform strategies for implementation and de-implementation? A critical interpretive synthesis

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based care requires healthcare practitioners to do less of some things (de-implementation) and more of others (implementation). Variations in effectiveness of behaviour change interventions may result from failure to consider a distinction between approaches by which behaviour increases and decreases in frequency. The distinction is not well represented in methods for designing interventions. This review aimed to identify whether there is a theoretical rationale to support this distinction. METHODS: Using Critical Interpretative Synthesis, this conceptual review included papers from a broad range of fields (biology, psychology, education, business) likely to report approaches for increasing or decreasing behaviour. Articles were identified from databases using search terms related to theory and behaviour change. Articles reporting changes in frequency of behaviour and explicit use of theory were included. Data extracted were direction of behaviour change, how theory was operationalised, and theory-based recommendations for behaviour change. Analyses of extracted data were conducted iteratively and involved inductive coding and critical exploration of ideas and purposive sampling of additional papers to explore theoretical concepts in greater detail. RESULTS: Critical analysis of 66 papers and their theoretical sources identified three key findings: (1) 9 of the 15 behavioural theories identified do not distinguish between implementation and de-implementation (5 theories were applied to only implementation or de-implementation, not both); (2) a common strategy for decreasing frequency was substituting one behaviour with another. No theoretical basis for this strategy was articulated, nor were methods proposed for selecting appropriate substitute behaviours; (3) Operant Learning Theory makes an explicit distinction between techniques for increasing and decreasing frequency. DISCUSSION: Behavioural theories provide little insight into the distinction between implementation and de-implementation. Operant Learning Theory identified different strategies for implementation and de-implementation, but these strategies may not be acceptable in health systems. Additionally, if behaviour substitution is an approach for de-implementation, further investigation may inform methods or rationale for selecting the substitute behaviour

Internet-based self-management support for adults with asthma: a qualitative study among patients, general practitioners and practice nurses on barriers to implementation

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore barriers among patients, general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses to implement internet-based self-management support as provided by PatientCoach for asthma in primary care. SETTING: Primary care within South Holland, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two patients (12 women, mean age 38 years), 21 GPs (6 women, mean age 52 years) and 13 practice nurses (all women, mean age 41 years). DESIGN: A qualitative study using focus groups and interviews. OUTCOMES: Barriers as perceived by patients, GPs and practice nurses to implementation of PatientCoach. METHODS: 10 focus groups and 12 interviews were held to collect data: 4 patient focus groups, 4 GP focus groups, 2 practice nurse focus group, 2 patient interviews, 5 GP interviews and 5 practice nurse interviews. A prototype of PatientCoach that included modules for coaching, personalised information, asthma self-monitoring, medication treatment plan, feedback, e-consultations and a forum was demonstrated. A semistructured topic guide was used. Directed content analysis was used to analyse data. Reported barriers were classified according to a framework by Grol and Wensing. RESULTS: A variety of barriers emerged among all participant groups. Barriers identified among patients include a lack of a patient–professional partnership in using PatientCoach and a lack of perceived benefit in improving asthma symptoms. Barriers identified among GPs include a low sense of urgency towards asthma care and current work routines. Practice nurses identified a low level of structured asthma care and a lack of support by colleagues as barriers. Among all participant groups, insufficient ease of use of PatientCoach, lack of financial arrangements and patient characteristics such as a lack of asthma symptoms were reported as barriers. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a variety of barriers to implementation of PatientCoach. An effective implementation strategy for internet-based self-management support in asthma care should focus on these barriers

Reduction of routine radiographs in the follow-up of distal radius and ankle fractures:Barriers and facilitators perceived by orthopaedic trauma surgeons

Trauma Surger

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

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-