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.

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

Activities and participation of children and adolescents after mild traumatic brain injury and the effectiveness of an early intervention (Brains Ahead!): study protocol for a cohort study with a nested randomised controlled trial

Background: Approximately 20 % of children and adolescents who have sustained mild traumatic brain injuries may experience long-term consequences, including cognitive problems, post-traumatic stress symptoms and reduced load-bearing capacity. The underestimation and belated recognition of these long-term consequences may lead to chronic and disruptive problems, such as participation problems in school and in social relationships. The aim of this study is to examine the level of activities and participation of children and adolescents up to 6 months after a mild traumatic brain injury and to identify possible outcome predictors. Another aim is to investigate the effectiveness of an early psychoeducational intervention and compare the results with those obtained with usual care.Methods/design: This paper presents the Brains Ahead! study design, a randomised controlled trial nested within a multicentre, longitudinal, prospective cohort study. The eligible participants include children and adolescents between 6 and 18 years of age who have experienced a mild traumatic brain injury within the last 2 weeks. The cohort study will include 500 children and adolescents with a mild traumatic brain injury and their caregivers. A subset of 140 participants and their caregivers will be included in the randomised controlled trial. Participants in the randomised controlled trial will be randomly assigned to either the psychoeducational intervention group or the usual care control group. The psychoeducational intervention involves one face-to-face contact and one phone contact with the interventionist, during which the consequences of mild traumatic brain injury and advice for coping with these consequences to prevent long-term problems will be discussed. Information will be provided both verbally and in a booklet. The primary outcome domain is activities and participation, which will be evaluated using the Child and Adolescent Scale of Participation. Participants are evaluated 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after the mild traumatic brain injury.Discussion: The results of this study will provide insight into which children with mild traumatic brain injury are at risk for long-term participation problems and may benefit from a psychoeducational intervention

Activities and participation of children and adolescents after mild traumatic brain injury and the effectiveness of an early intervention (Brains Ahead!): study protocol for a cohort study with a nested randomised controlled trial

textabstractBackground: Approximately 20% of children and adolescents who have sustained mild traumatic brain injuries may experience long-term consequences, including cognitive problems, post-traumatic stress symptoms and reduced load-bearing capacity. The underestimation and belated recognition of these long-term consequences may lead to chronic and disruptive problems, such as participation problems in school and in social relationships. The aim of this study is to examine the level of activities and participation of children and adolescents up to 6months after a mild traumatic brain injury and to identify possible outcome predictors. Another aim is to investigate the effectiveness of an early psychoeducational intervention and compare the results with those obtained with usual care. Methods/design: This paper presents the Brains Ahead! study design, a randomised controlled trial nested within a multicentre, longitudinal, prospective cohort study. The eligible participants include children and adolescents between 6 and 18years of age who have experienced a mild traumatic brain injury within the last 2weeks. The cohort study will include 500 children and adolescents with a mild traumatic brain injury and their caregivers. A subset of 140 participants and their caregivers will be included in the randomised controlled trial. Participants in the randomised controlled trial will be randomly assigned to either the psychoeducational intervention group or the usual care control group. The psychoeducational intervention involves one face-to-face contact and one phone contact with the interventionist, during which the consequences of mild traumatic brain injury and advice for coping with these consequences to prevent long-term problems will be discussed. Information will be provided both verbally and in a booklet. The primary outcome domain is activities and participation, which will be evaluated using the Child and Adolescent Scale of Participation. Participants are evaluated 2weeks, 3months and 6months after the mild traumatic brain injury. Discussion: The results of this study will provide insight into which children with mild traumatic brain injury are at risk for long-term participation problems and may benefit from a psychoeducational intervention

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-