Effectiveness and implementation of a multidisciplinary lifestyle focused approach in the treatment of inpatients with mental illness (MULTI +): a stepped wedge study protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with mental illness have a reduced life expectancy compared to the general population. Despite the increasing evidence for the efficacy of lifestyle interventions there is little change in routine clinical care. This discrepancy is often referred to as the implementation gap and has caused a need for effectiveness and implementation research in real-world settings. Our study assesses the effectiveness and implementation of a multidisciplinary lifestyle focused approach in the treatment of inpatients with mental illness (MULTI +). METHODS: An open cohort stepped wedge cluster randomized trial in inpatients psychiatric wards of GGz Centraal, the Netherlands. The wards are divided into three clusters based on geographical region. These clusters are randomly allocated to one of the three pre-defined steps to integrate MULTI + . MULTI + can be tailored to fit individual psychiatric wards and includes 10 core components aimed at improving lifestyle factors. The primary outcome is to investigate the difference in the mean QRISK3 score of patients receiving MULTI + compared to patients receiving TAU. Secondary outcomes include somatic and mental health outcomes, lifestyle factors, and implementation factors. Findings will be analysed using mixed model analyses. DISCUSSION: The MULTI + study is the first large-scale study evaluating the long-term effects of a multidisciplinary, multicomponent approach aimed at improving lifestyle factors in routine inpatient mental health care. A limitation of this study is the risk of missing data due to the large-scale, real-world setting of this study. Furthermore, implementation monitoring and external events that may influence outcomes could be difficult to account for. Strengths of this study are the focus on effectiveness as well as implementation and the inclusion of both patient and health care professionals' perspectives. Effectiveness studies in routine clinical care can advance our knowledge on lifestyle interventions in real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration. Identifier: NCT04922749 . Retrospectively registered 3th of June 2021.

[Thinking inside the box: improving the lifestyle of inpatients with severe mental illness]. / Thinking inside the box: leefstijl­verbetering bij mensen met een ernstige psychiatrische aandoening in de kliniek.

BACKGROUND: An unhealthy lifestyle plays an important role in the substantially reduced life-expectancy of inpatients with severe mental illness (SMI). However, there is a lack of evidence on the long-term effectiveness and implementation of lifestyle improvements in inpatient mental healthcare.
AIM: Increasing knowledge and understanding of (the implementation of) lifestyle changes in inpatients with SMI in longer-term clinical care.
METHOD: Cross-sectional research followed by an observational study to evaluate a multidisciplinary lifestyle enhancing treatment (MULTI) for both changes in health-related outcomes after 18 months compared to treatment as usual (TAU), and the implementation barriers and facilitators.
RESULTS: Patients were very sedentary and less physically active compared to people without SMI. After 18 months, MULTI showed significant improvements in total physical activity, cardiometabolic risk factors, psychosocial functioning and mediation use, compared to TAU. Physical health did not improve in TAU. The implementation of MULTI was hampered by organisational factors and facilitated by positive attitudes of healthcare professionals and patients towards MULTI and their own role in it.
CONCLUSION: Using a multidisciplinary integrated approach, it is possible to improve the lifestyle, and thus the health status, of SMI inpatients, within the current context of routine mental healthcare.

The cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a combined social and physical environmental intervention in office employees.

This study explored the cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a combined social and physical environmental worksite health promotion program compared with usual practice, and of both intervention conditions separately. Participants were randomized to the combined intervention (n = 92), social environmental intervention (n = 118), physical environmental intervention (n = 96), or control group (n = 106). The social environmental intervention consisted of group motivational interviewing and the physical environmental intervention of workplace modifications. Both interventions were aimed at improving physical activity and relaxation. Effects included need for recovery (NFR), general vitality and job satisfaction. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed from the societal and employer's perspective, and return-on-investment analyses from the employer's perspective. Compared with usual practice, the combined intervention was significantly more effective in improving NFR (-8.4;95% CI:-14.6;-2.2) and significantly more expensive to the employer (3102; 95%CI:598;5969). All other between-group differences were non-significant. For NFR, the combined intervention became the preferred option at willingness-to-pays of ≥€170/point improvement (society) and ≥€300/point improvement (employer). For general vitality and job satisfaction, the interventions' maximum probabilities of cost-effective were low (≤0.55). All interventions had a negative return-on-investment. The combined intervention may be cost-effective for NFR depending on the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay. Both separate interventions are not cost-effective for NFR. All interventions were neither cost-effective for general vitality and job satisfaction, nor cost-saving to the employer.

Prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain in the general population; a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence and prevalence of shoulder complaints in the general population. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Medline, Embase, and Cinahl were searched for relevant studies. RESULTS: Eighteen studies on prevalence and one study on incidence met the inclusion criteria. Incidence figures of 0.9-2.5% were found for different age groups. Prevalence figures differed from 6.9 to 26% for point prevalence, 18.6-31%, for 1-month prevalence, 4.7-46.7% for 1-year prevalence and 6.7-66.7% for lifetime prevalence. Prevalence rates decreased when the case definition was restricted, in terms of duration of pain or the presence of limited movements, and increased when the location for pain was enlarged. CONCLUSION: The reported prevalence figures on shoulder complaints diverged strongly. Health professionals and policymakers who estimate the amount of medical care needed and related costs should be aware of the variations in prevalence rate and the underlying reasons for these differences.