Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Digital Health Services for People With Musculoskeletal Conditions in the Primary Health Care Setting: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions have increasingly been studied and show potential. Despite the potential of digital health services, their use in primary care is lagging. A thorough implementation is needed, including the development of implementation strategies that potentially improve the use of digital health services in primary care. The first step in designing implementation strategies that fit the local context is to gain insight into determinants that influence implementation for patients and health care professionals. Until now, no systematic overview has existed of barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting. OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review aims to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for eligible qualitative and mixed methods studies up to March 2024. Methodological quality of the qualitative component of the included studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A framework synthesis of barriers and facilitators to implementation was conducted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). All identified CFIR constructs were given a reliability rating (high, medium, or low) to assess the consistency of reporting across each construct. RESULTS: Overall, 35 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Methodological quality was high in 34 studies and medium in 1 study. Barriers (-) of and facilitators (+) to implementation were identified in all 5 CFIR domains: "digital health characteristics" (ie, commercial neutral [+], privacy and safety [-], specificity [+], and good usability [+]), "outer setting" (ie, acceptance by stakeholders [+], lack of health care guidelines [-], and external financial incentives [-]), "inner setting" (ie, change of treatment routines [+ and -], information incongruence (-), and support from colleagues [+]), "characteristics of the healthcare professionals" (ie, health care professionals' acceptance [+ and -] and job satisfaction [+ and -]), and the "implementation process" (involvement [+] and justification and delegation [-]). All identified constructs and subconstructs of the CFIR had a high reliability rating. Some identified determinants that influence implementation may be facilitators in certain cases, whereas in others, they may be barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers and facilitators were identified across all 5 CFIR domains, suggesting that the implementation process can be complex and requires implementation strategies across all CFIR domains. Stakeholders, including digital health intervention developers, health care professionals, health care organizations, health policy makers, health care funders, and researchers, can consider the identified barriers and facilitators to design tailored implementation strategies after prioritization has been carried out in their local context.

Proof of concept and feasibility of a blended physiotherapy intervention for persons with haemophilic arthropathy.

BACKGROUND: Regular physiotherapy with a physiotherapist experienced in the field is not feasible for many patients with haemophilia. We, therefore, developed a blended physiotherapy intervention for persons with haemophilic arthropathy (HA) (e-Exercise HA), integrating face-to-face physiotherapy with a smartphone application. AIM: The aim of the study was to determine proof of concept of e- Exercise HA and to evaluate feasibility. METHODS: Proof of concept was evaluated by a single-case multiple baseline design. Physical activity (PA) was measured with an accelerometer during a baseline, intervention and post-intervention phase and analysed using visual inspection and a single case randomisation test. Changes in limitations in activities (Haemophilia Activities List [HAL]) and a General Perceived Effect (GPE) were evaluated between baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1) and 3 months post-intervention (T2) using Wilcoxson signed rank test. Feasibility was evaluated by the number of adverse events, attended sessions and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Nine patients with HA (90% severe, median age 57.5 (quartiles 50.5-63.3) and median HJHS 32 (quartiles 22-36)) were included. PA increased in two patients. HAL increased mean 15 (SD 9) points (p = .001) at T1, and decrease to mean +8 points (SD 7) (p = .012) at T2 compared to T0. At T1 and T2 8/9 participants scored a GPE > 3. Median 5 (range 4-7) face-to-face sessions were attended and a median 8 out of 12 information modules were viewed. No intervention-related bleeds were reported. CONCLUSION: A blended physiotherapy intervention is feasible for persons with HA and the first indication of the effectiveness of the intervention in decreasing limitations in activities was observed.

Development and feasibility of stratified primary care physiotherapy integrated with eHealth in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints: results of a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Providing individualized care based on the context and preferences of the patient is important. Knowledge on both prognostic risk stratification and blended eHealth care in musculoskeletal conditions is increasing and seems promising. Stratification can be used to match patients to the most optimal content and intensity of treatment as well as mode of treatment delivery (i.e. face-to-face or blended with eHealth). However, research on the integration of stratified and blended eHealth care with corresponding matched treatment options for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints is lacking. METHODS: This study was a mixed methods study comprising the development of matched treatment options, followed by an evaluation of the feasibility of the developed Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach. In the first phase, three focus groups with physiotherapists and physiotherapy experts were conducted. The second phase investigated the feasibility (i.e. satisfaction, usability and experiences) of the Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach for both physiotherapists and patients in a multicenter single-arm convergent parallel mixed methods feasibility study. RESULTS: In the first phase, matched treatment options were developed for six patient subgroups. Recommendations for content and intensity of physiotherapy were matched to the patient's risk of persistent disabling pain (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool: low/medium/high risk). In addition, selection of mode of treatment delivery was matched to the patient's suitability for blended care (using the Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist: yes/no). A paper-based workbook and e-Exercise app modules were developed as two different mode of treatment delivery options, to support physiotherapists. Feasibility was evaluated in the second phase. Physiotherapists and patients were mildly satisfied with the new approach. Usability of the physiotherapist dashboard to set up the e-Exercise app was considered 'OK' by physiotherapists. Patients considered the e-Exercise app to be of 'best imaginable' usability. The paper-based workbook was not used. CONCLUSION: Results of the focus groups led to the development of matched treatment options. Results of the feasibility study showed experiences with integrating stratified and blended eHealth care and have informed amendments to the Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints ready to use within a future cluster randomized trial.

Smartphone-assisted training with education for patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (SmArt-E): study protocol for a multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hip and knee osteoarthritis are associated with functional limitations, pain and restrictions in quality of life and the ability to work. Furthermore, with growing prevalence, osteoarthritis is increasingly causing (in)direct costs. Guidelines recommend exercise therapy and education as primary treatment strategies. Available options for treatment based on physical activity promotion and lifestyle change are often insufficiently provided and used. In addition, the quality of current exercise programmes often does not meet the changing care needs of older people with comorbidities and exercise adherence is a challenge beyond personal physiotherapy. The main objective of this study is to investigate the short- and long-term (cost-)effectiveness of the SmArt-E programme in people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain and physical functioning compared to usual care. METHODS: This study is designed as a multicentre randomized controlled trial with a target sample size of 330 patients. The intervention is based on the e-Exercise intervention from the Netherlands, consists of a training and education programme and is conducted as a blended care intervention over 12 months. We use an app to support independent training and the development of self-management skills. The primary and secondary hypotheses are that participants in the SmArt-E intervention will have less pain (numerical rating scale) and better physical functioning (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) compared to participants in the usual care group after 12 and 3 months. Other secondary outcomes are based on domains of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). The study will be accompanied by a process evaluation. DISCUSSION: After a positive evaluation, SmArt-E can be offered in usual care, flexibly addressing different care situations. The desired sustainability and the support of the participants' behavioural change are initiated via the app through audio-visual contact with their physiotherapists. Furthermore, the app supports the repetition and consolidation of learned training and educational content. For people with osteoarthritis, the new form of care with proven effectiveness can lead to a reduction in underuse and misuse of care as well as contribute to a reduction in (in)direct costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00028477. Registered on August 10, 2022.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of a Stratified Blended Physiotherapy Intervention Compared With Face-to-Face Physiotherapy in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is a leading contributor to disability worldwide, and its socioeconomic burden is substantial. Self-management support is an important recommendation in clinical guidelines for the physiotherapy treatment of patients with LBP and may support cost-effective management. However, providing adequate individually tailored self-management support is difficult. The integration of web-based applications into face-to-face care (ie, blended care) seems promising to optimize tailored treatment and enhance patients' self-management and, consequently, may reduce LBP-related costs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) compared with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a prospective, multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care physiotherapy. Patients with nonspecific LBP were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) (n=104) or face-to-face physiotherapy (n=104). The content of both interventions was based on the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients' risk of developing persistent LBP using the STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary clinical outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a). For the economic evaluation, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; EQ-5D-5L) and physical functioning were the primary outcomes. Secondary clinical outcomes included fear avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. Costs were measured from societal and health care perspectives using self-report questionnaires. Effectiveness was estimated using linear mixed models. Seemingly unrelated regression analyses were conducted to estimate total cost and effect differences for the economic evaluation. RESULTS: Neither clinically relevant nor statistically substantial differences were found between stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy regarding physical functioning (mean difference [MD] -1.1, 95% CI -3.9 to 1.7) and QALYs (MD 0.026, 95% CI -0.020 to 0.072) over 12 months. Regarding the secondary outcomes, fear avoidance beliefs showed a statistically significant improvement in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy (MD -4.3, 95% CI -7.3 to -1.3). Societal and health care costs were higher for stratified blended physiotherapy than for face-to-face physiotherapy, but the differences were not statistically significant (societal: €972 [US $1027], 95% CI -€1090 to €3264 [US -$1151 to $3448]; health care: €73 [US $77], 95% CI -€59 to €225 [US -$62 to $238]). Among the disaggregated cost categories, only unpaid productivity costs were significantly higher for stratified blended physiotherapy. From both perspectives, a considerable amount of money must be paid per additional QALY or 1-point improvement in physical functioning to reach a relatively low to moderate probability (ie, 0.23-0.81) of stratified blended physiotherapy being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is neither more effective for improving physical functioning nor more cost-effective from societal or health care perspectives compared with face-to-face physiotherapy for patients with nonspecific LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 94074203; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN94074203. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z.

The 3-Month Effectiveness of a Stratified Blended Physiotherapy Intervention in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients' self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients' physical functioning. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. METHODS: The study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients' risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Both the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference -1.96, 95% CI -4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference -16.39, 95% CI -27.98 to -4.79) and several secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry 94074203; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN94074203. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z.

Stratified care integrated with eHealth versus usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck and shoulder complaints are common in primary care physiotherapy. These patients experience pain and disability, resulting in high societal costs due to, for example, healthcare use and work absence. Content and intensity of physiotherapy care can be matched to a patient's risk of persistent disabling pain. Mode of care delivery can be matched to the patient's suitability for blended care (integrating eHealth with physiotherapy sessions). It is hypothesized that combining these two approaches to stratified care (referred to from this point as Stratified Blended Approach) will improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints compared to usual physiotherapy. METHODS: This paper presents the protocol of a multicenter, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial. A total of 92 physiotherapists will be recruited from Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices. Physiotherapy practices will be randomized to the Stratified Blended Approach arm or usual physiotherapy arm by a computer-generated random sequence table using SPSS (1:1 allocation). Number of physiotherapists (1 or > 1) will be used as a stratification variable. A total of 238 adults consulting with neck and/or shoulder complaints will be recruited to the trial by the physiotherapy practices. In the Stratified Blended Approach arm, physiotherapists will match I) the content and intensity of physiotherapy care to the patient's risk of persistent disabling pain, categorized as low, medium or high (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and II) the mode of care delivery to the patient's suitability and willingness to receive blended care. The control arm will receive physiotherapy as usual. Neither physiotherapists nor patients in the control arm will be informed about the Stratified Blended Approach arm. The primary outcome is region-specific pain and disability (combined score of Shoulder Pain and Disability Index & Neck Pain and Disability Scale) over 9 months. Effectiveness will be compared using linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and healthcare perspective. DISCUSSION: The trial will be the first to provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Stratified Blended Approach compared with usual physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NL8249 . Officially registered since 27 December 2019. Date of first enrollment: 30 September 2020. Study status: ongoing, data collection.

Movement behaviour patterns in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis in the physical therapy setting: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is one of the most common chronic joint diseases, mostly affecting the knee or hip through pain, joint stiffness and decreased physical functioning in daily life. Regular physical activity (PA) can help preserve and improve physical functioning and reduce pain in patients with osteoarthritis. Interventions aiming to improve movement behaviour can be optimized by tailoring them to a patients' starting point; their current movement behaviour. Movement behaviour needs to be assessed in its full complexity, and therefore a multidimensional description is needed. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify subgroups based on movement behaviour patterns in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis who are eligible for a PA intervention. Second, differences between subgroups regarding Body Mass Index, sex, age, physical functioning, comorbidities, fatigue and pain were determined between subgroups. METHODS: Baseline data of the clinical trial 'e-Exercise Osteoarthritis', collected in Dutch primary care physical therapy practices were analysed. Movement behaviour was assessed with ActiGraph GT3X and GT3X+ accelerometers. Groups with similar patterns were identified using a hierarchical cluster analysis, including six clustering variables indicating total time in and distribution of PA and sedentary behaviours. Differences in clinical characteristics between groups were assessed via Kruskall Wallis and Chi2 tests. RESULTS: Accelerometer data, including all daily activities during 3 to 5 subsequent days, of 182 patients (average age 63 years) with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis were analysed. Four patterns were identified: inactive & sedentary, prolonged sedentary, light active and active. Physical functioning was less impaired in the group with the active pattern compared to the inactive & sedentary pattern. The group with the prolonged sedentary pattern experienced lower levels of pain and fatigue and higher levels of physical functioning compared to the light active and compared to the inactive & sedentary. CONCLUSIONS: Four subgroups with substantially different movement behaviour patterns and clinical characteristics can be identified in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. Knowledge about these subgroups can be used to personalize future movement behaviour interventions for this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch clinical trial registration number of e-Exercise Osteoarthritis: NTR4224 .

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy in patients with non-specific low back pain: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient education, advice on returning to normal activities and (home-based) exercise therapy are established treatment options for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on physical functioning and prevention of recurrent events largely depends on patient self-management, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour. Therefore we have developed e-Exercise LBP, a blended intervention in which a smartphone application is integrated within face-to-face care. E-Exercise LBP aims to improve patient self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations and consequently improve the effectiveness of physiotherapy on patients' physical functioning. The aim of this study is to investigate the short- (3 months) and long-term (12 and 24 months) effectiveness on physical functioning and cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP in comparison to usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with LBP. METHODS: This paper presents the protocol of a prospective, multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial. In total 208 patients with LBP pain were treated with either e-Exercise LBP or usual care physiotherapy. E-Exercise LBP is stratified based on the risk for developing persistent LBP. Physiotherapists are able to monitor and evaluate treatment progress between face-to-face sessions using patient input from the smartphone application in order to optimize physiotherapy care. The smartphone application contains video-supported self-management information, video-supported exercises and a goal-oriented physical activity module. The primary outcome is physical functioning at 12-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, physical activity, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour, self-efficacy, patient activation and health-related quality of life. All measurements will be performed at baseline, 3, 12 and 24 months after inclusion. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and the healthcare perspective and will assess cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP compared to usual physiotherapy at 12 and 24 months. DISCUSSION: A multi-phase development and implementation process using the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap for the participatory development of eHealth was used for development and evaluation. The findings will provide evidence on the effectiveness of blended care for patients with LBP and help to enhance future implementation of blended physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN94074203. Registered 20 July 2018 - Retrospectively registered.

A Blended Physiotherapy Intervention for Persons With Hemophilic Arthropathy: Development Study.

BACKGROUND: Joint bleeds are the hallmark of hemophilia, leading to a painful arthritic condition called as hemophilic arthropathy (HA). Exercise programs are frequently used to improve the physical functioning in persons with HA. As hemophilia is a rare disease, there are not many physiotherapists who are experienced in the field of hemophilia, and regular physiotherapy sessions with an experienced physiotherapist in the field of hemophilia are not feasible for persons with HA. Blended care is an innovative intervention that can support persons with HA at home to perform the advised physical activities and exercises and provide self-management information. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a blended physiotherapy intervention for persons with HA. METHODS: The blended physiotherapy intervention, namely, e-Exercise HA was developed by cocreation with physiotherapists, persons with HA, software developers, and researchers. The content of e-Exercise HA was compiled using the first 3 steps of the Center for eHealth Research roadmap model (ie, contextual inquiry, value specification, and design), including people with experience in the development of previous blended physiotherapy interventions, a literature search, and focus groups. RESULTS: A 12-week blended intervention was developed, integrating face-to-face physiotherapy sessions with a web-based app. The intervention consists of information modules for persons with HA and information modules for physiotherapists, a graded activity program using a self-chosen activity, and personalized video-supported exercises. The information modules consist of text blocks, videos, and reflective questions. The patients can receive pop-ups as reminders and give feedback on the performance of the prescribed activities. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we developed a blended physiotherapy intervention for persons with HA, which consists of information modules, a graded activity program, and personalized video-supported exercises.

Development of a Checklist to Assist Physiotherapists in Determination of Patients' Suitability for a Blended Treatment.

Background: The integration of digital applications within health care is called blended care. Introduction: Despite its potential, physiotherapists experience difficulty in determining which patients are suitable for blended care. This study aimed to develop a checklist to support physiotherapists while setting up a blended treatment. Therefore, we aimed to investigate which patient characteristics predict patients' suitability for blended physiotherapy and which patient characteristics need to be taken into account while determining the ratio between therapeutic guidance and a digital application. Methods: A scoping review was conducted consisting of (1) literature search in PubMed and PEDro up to December 2017: studies were eligible if they focused on blended physiotherapy consisting of contact at least twice with a physiotherapist complemented by a digital application, and characteristics related to patients' suitability for blended physiotherapy were extracted and categorized in themes; (2) a checklist item for each theme formulated by the authors, which resulted in a first version of the Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist; and (3) expert opinion and feedback on clinical relevance by six experts. The checklist was adapted accordingly. Results: The final Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist consists of eight items: motivation, safety, equipment, digital skills, health literacy, self-management, time, and financial factors. Discussion: The next step is to investigate the feasibility and predictive validity of the checklist, that is, whether this checklist is actually able to predict patients' suitability for blended physiotherapy. Conclusions: This study provides the final version of the Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist, which is supposed to guide physiotherapists in their clinical reasoning process while setting up a personalized, blended physiotherapy treatment.

To what degree do patients actively choose their healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP? A video observation study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries in Europe have implemented managed competition and patient choice during the last decade. With the introduction of managed competition, health insurers also became an important stakeholder. They purchase services on behalf of their customers and are allowed to contract healthcare providers selectively. It has, therefore, become increasingly important to take one's insurance into account when choosing a provider. There is little evidence that patients make active choices in the way that policymakers assume they do. This research aims to investigate, firstly, the role of patients in choosing a healthcare provider at the point of referral, then the role of the GP and, finally, the influence of the health insurer/insurance policies within this process. METHODS: We videotaped a series of everyday consultations between Dutch GPs and their patients during 2015 and 2016. In 117 of these consultations, with 28 GPs, the patient was referred to another healthcare provider. These consultations were coded by three observers using an observation protocol which assessed the role of the patient, GP, and the influence of the health insurer during the referral. RESULTS: Patients were divided into three groups: patients with little or no input, patients with some input, and those with a lot of input. Just over half of the patients (56%) seemed to have some, or a lot of, input into the choice of a healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP. In addition, in almost half of the consultations (47%), GPs inquired about their patients' preferences regarding a healthcare provider. Topics regarding the health insurance or insurance policy of a patient were rarely (14%) discussed at the point of referral. CONCLUSIONS: Just over half of the patients appear to have some, or a lot of, input into their choice of a healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP. However, the remainder of the patients had little or no input. If more patient choice continues to be an important aim for policy makers, patients should be encouraged to actively choose the healthcare provider who best fits their needs and preferences.

Cost-effectiveness of a blended physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Blended physiotherapy, in which physiotherapy sessions and an online application are integrated, might support patients in taking an active role in the management of their chronic condition and may reduce disease related costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a blended physiotherapy intervention (e-Exercise) compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with osteoarthritis of hip and/or knee, from the societal as well as the healthcare perspective. METHODS: This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month cluster randomized controlled trial, in which 108 patients received e-Exercise, consisting of physiotherapy sessions and a web-application, and 99 patients received usual physiotherapy. Clinical outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) according to the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3 L), physical functioning (HOOS/KOOS) and physical activity (Actigraph Accelerometer). Costs were measured using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were multiply imputed and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. RESULTS: Intervention costs and medication costs were significantly lower in e-Exercise compared to usual physiotherapy. Total societal costs and total healthcare costs did not significantly differ between groups. No significant differences in effectiveness were found between groups. For physical functioning and physical activity, the maximum probability of e-Exercise being cost-effective compared to usual physiotherapy was moderate (< 0.82) from both perspectives. For QALYs, the probability of e-Exercise being cost-effective compared to usual physiotherapy was 0.68/0.84 at a willingness to pay of 10,000 Euro and 0.70/0.80 at a willingness to pay of 80,000 Euro per gained QALY, from respectively the societal and the healthcare perspective. CONCLUSIONS: E-Exercise itself was significantly cheaper compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis, but not cost-effective from the societal- as well as healthcare perspective. The decision between both interventions can be based on the preferences of the patient and the physiotherapist. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR4224 (25 October 2013).

Feasibility of a home-based exercise intervention with remote guidance for patients with stable grade II and III gliomas: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: In this pilot study, we investigated the feasibility of a home-based, remotely guided exercise intervention for patients with gliomas. DESIGN: Pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with randomization (2:1) to exercise or control group. SUBJECTS: Patients with stable grade II and III gliomas. INTERVENTION: The six-month intervention included three home-based exercise sessions per week at 60%-85% of maximum heart rate. Participants wore heart rate monitors connected to an online platform to record activities that were monitored weekly by the physiotherapist. MAIN MEASURES: Accrual, attrition, adherence, safety, satisfaction, patient-reported physical activity, VO2 peak (by maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing) and body mass index (BMI) at baseline and at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: In all, 34 of 136 eligible patients (25%) were randomized to exercise training ( N = 23) or the control group ( N = 11), of whom 19 and 9, respectively, underwent follow-up. Mean adherence to prescribed sessions was 79%. Patients' experiences were positive. There were no adverse events. Compared to the control group, the exercise group showed larger improvements in absolute VO2 peak (+158.9 mL/min; 95% CI: -44.8 to 362.5) and BMI (-0.3 kg/m²; 95% CI: -0.9 to 0.2). The median increase in physical activity was 1489 metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes higher in the exercise group. The most reported reasons for non-participation were lack of motivation or time. CONCLUSION: This innovative and intensive home-based exercise intervention was feasible in a small subset of patients with stable gliomas who were interested in exercising. The observed effects suggest that the programme may improve cardiorespiratory fitness. These results support the need for large-scale trials of exercise interventions in brain tumour patients.

Blended Interventions to Change Behavior in Patients With Chronic Somatic Disorders: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Blended behavior change interventions combine therapeutic guidance with online care. This new way of delivering health care is supposed to stimulate patients with chronic somatic disorders in taking an active role in their disease management. However, knowledge about the effectiveness of blended behavior change interventions and how they should be composed is scattered. OBJECTIVE: This comprehensive systematic review aimed to provide an overview of characteristics and effectiveness of blended behavior change interventions for patients with chronic somatic disorders. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials published from 2000 to April 2017 in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Study characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcome data were extracted. Studies were sorted based on their comparison group. A best-evidence synthesis was conducted to summarize the effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 25 out of the 29 included studies were of high quality. Most studies (n=21; 72%) compared a blended intervention with no intervention. The majority of interventions focused on changing pain behavior (n=17; 59%), and the other interventions focused on lifestyle change (n=12; 41%). In addition, 26 studies (90%) focused on one type of behavior, whereas 3 studies (10%) focused on multiple behaviors. A total of 23 studies (79%) mentioned a theory as basis for the intervention. The therapeutic guidance in most studies (n=18; 62%) was non face-to-face by using email, phone, or videoconferencing, and in the other studies (partly), it was face-to-face (n=11; 38%). In 26 studies (90%), the online care was provided via a website, and in 3 studies (10%) via an app. In 22 studies (76%), the therapeutic guidance and online care were integrated instead of two separate aspects. A total of 26 outcome measures were included in the evidence synthesis comparing blended interventions with no intervention: for the coping strategy catastrophizing, we found strong evidence for a significant effect. In addition, 1 outcome measure was included in the evidence synthesis comparing blended interventions with face-to-face interventions, but no evidence for a significant effect was found. A total of 6 outcome measures were included in the evidence synthesis comparing blended interventions with online interventions, but no evidence for a significant effect was found. CONCLUSIONS: Blended behavior change interventions for patients with chronic somatic disorders show variety in the type of therapeutic guidance, the type of online care, and how these two delivery modes are integrated. The evidence of the effectiveness of blended interventions is inconsistent and nonsignificant for most outcome measures. Future research should focus on which type of blended intervention works for whom.

Determinants of Adherence to the Online Component of a Blended Intervention for Patients with Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Mixed Methods Study Embedded in the e-Exercise Trial.

BACKGROUND: Embedding Web-based interventions within physiotherapy has potential, but knowledge on patient adherence to these interventions is limited. INTRODUCTION: This study explores which patient-, intervention-, and environment-related factors are determinants of adherence to the online component of e-Exercise, a 12-week blended intervention for patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: A convergent mixed methods study was performed, embedded within an ongoing trial. Quantitative data of 109 participants that received e-Exercise were used for negative binomial regression analysis. Adherence was defined as the number of online evaluated weeks. Next, semistructured interviews on factors related to adherence to the online component were analyzed. RESULTS: Nineteen participants with missing outcome data because their program was not started were excluded. Of the 90 analyzed participants, 81.1% were evaluated for at least 8 weeks. Adherence was highest for participants with middle education, 1-5-year osteoarthritis duration, and participants who were physiotherapist recruited. The 10 analyzed interviews revealed that sufficient Internet skills, self-discipline, execution of the exercise plan, the intervention's usability, flexibility, persuasive design, added value, and acceptable required time, and research participation were linked to favorable adherence. DISCUSSION: It is unknown if patients who adhered to the online component also adhered to their exercise plans. The relationship between adherence to the online component and clinical outcomes will be addressed in a future study. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the participants adhered to the online component of e-Exercise, illustrating its applicability. The integration within the physiotherapy setting and intervention's persuasive design appear to have an important role in optimizing patient adherence.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a blended exercise intervention for patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise therapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis is effective in reducing pain, increasing physical activity and physical functioning, but costly and a burden for the health care budget. A web-based intervention is cheap in comparison to face-to-face exercise therapy and has the advantage of supporting in home exercises because of the 24/7 accessibility. However, the lack of face-to-face contact with a professional is a disadvantage of web-based interventions and is probably one of the reasons for low adherence rates. In order to combine the best of two worlds, we have developed the intervention e-Exercise. In this blended intervention face-to-face contacts with a physical therapist are partially replaced by a web-based exercise intervention. The aim of this study is to investigate the short- (3 months) and long-term (12 months) (cost)-effectiveness of e-Exercise compared to usual care physical therapy. Our hypothesis is that e-Exercise is more effective and cost-effective in increasing physical functioning and physical activity compared to usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper presents the protocol of a prospective, single-blinded, multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial. In total, 200 patients with OA of the hip and/or knee will be randomly allocated into either e-Exercise or usual care (physical therapy). E-Exercise is a 12-week intervention, consisting of maximum five face-to-face physical therapy contacts supplemented with a web-based program. The web-based program contains assignments to gradually increase patients' physical activity, strength and stability exercises and information about OA related topics. Primary outcomes are physical activity and physical functioning. Secondary outcomes are health related quality of life, self-perceived effect, pain, tiredness and self-efficacy. All measurements will be performed at baseline, 3 and 12 months after inclusion. Retrospective cost questionnaires will be sent at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months and used for the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: This study is the first randomized controlled trial in the (cost)-effectiveness of a blended exercise intervention for patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. The findings will help to improve the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR4224.

Prognostic Factors and Changes in Pain, Physical Functioning, and Participation in Patients With Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically synthesize literature on prognostic factors of changes in either direction (ie, worsening or improvement) in pain, physical functioning, and participation in patients with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Studies included in two preceding reviews underwent full-text screening for inclusion in the current review. Additionally, an extensive literature search was conducted in five databases. Title/abstract screening was performed using an active learning program. Inclusion criteria comprised patients diagnosed with knee and/or hip OA, with the dependent variable assessing pain, physical functioning, or participation. Potential associated prognostic factors were measured as independent variables. The methodologic quality of studies was assessed with the Hayden criteria. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies were included in this systematic review. In patients with knee OA, pain worsening was associated with lower physical functioning (strong evidence) and with higher body mass index, ethnicity, and a higher comorbidity count (moderate evidence). Also, in patients with knee OA, pain improvement was associated with less pain at baseline (moderate evidence). In patients with knee and/or hip OA, worsening of physical functioning exhibited associations with higher body mass index, more pain, more hip pain, a higher comorbidity count, higher avoidance of activities (strong evidence), and ethnicity (moderate evidence). In patients with knee OA, improvement in physical functioning showed an association with higher vitality (moderate evidence). Regarding the remaining prognostic factors, there is weak, inconclusive, or inconsistent evidence for an association with the outcomes. In patients with hip OA, only weak evidence was found for three factors predicting a change in physical functioning. CONCLUSION: This review encompasses prognostic factors associated with changes in either direction (ie, worsening or improvement) in pain, physical functioning, and participation. The results are consistent with other reviews. Future research should place a stronger emphasis on patients with hip OA and participation as an outcome.

Exploring needs and requirements for a prototype device measuring physical activity in pediatric physical therapy: A qualitative study.

AIMS: To analyze needs and requirements of Pediatric Physical Therapists (PPTs), parents, children and adolescents with and without developmental disabilities in the future use of an activity monitor prototype (AM-p) in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: Qualitative exploratory study with a thematic analysis approach, based on Braun and Clarke's six steps. Codes derived from the analysis and central themes were collated, based on Fleuren et al.'s groupings of determinants. RESULTS: We interviewed 25 PPTs, 12 parents, and 12 children and adolescents. Within four groupings of determinants, we found nine themes: 1) development of information materials; 2) application: output visualization and ease of use; 3) design; 4) relevance and acceptance; 5) shared decision-making; 6) compatibility in daily living; 7) finances, 8) time, and 9) legislation and regulations. CONCLUSIONS: End-users have similar basic needs, with individual fine-tuning to be addressed during further development of the AM-p. A child-friendly design, information material, and an easy-to-use application to read and interpret results, need to be developed. Efficient training for PPTs is important for the use of the AM-p and analysis of results. Communication between PPTs and children as well as parents enhances shared decision-making. We recommend involving diverse end-users to enable maximum customization of the AM-p.

Blended Care in Patients With Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis in Physical Therapy: Delphi Study on Needs and Preconditions.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a major public health concern. Despite existing evidence-based treatment options, the health care situation remains unsatisfactory. Digital care options, especially when combined with in-person sessions, seem to be promising. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the needs, preconditions, barriers, and facilitators of blended physical therapy for osteoarthritis. METHODS: This Delphi study consisted of interviews, an online questionnaire, and focus groups. Participants were physical therapists, patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis with or without experience in digital care, and stakeholders of the health care system. In the first phase, interviews were conducted with patients and physical therapists. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research. The interviews focused on experiences with digital and blended care. Furthermore, needs, facilitators, and barriers were discussed. In the second phase, an online questionnaire and focus groups served the process to confirm the needs and collect preconditions. The online questionnaire contained statements drawn by the results of the interviews. Patients and physical therapists were invited to complete the questionnaire and participate in one of the three focus groups including (1) patients; (2) physical therapists; and (3) a patient, a physical therapist, and stakeholders from the health care system. The focus groups were used to determine concordance with the results of the interviews and the online questionnaire. RESULTS: Nine physical therapists, seven patients, and six stakeholders confirmed that an increase of acceptance of the digital care part by physical therapists and patients is crucial. One of the most frequently mentioned facilitators was conducting regular in-person sessions. Physical therapists and patients concluded that blended physical therapy must be tailored to the patients' needs. Participants of the last focus group stated that the reimbursement of blended physical therapy needs to be clarified. CONCLUSIONS: Most importantly, it is necessary to strengthen the acceptance of patients and physical therapists toward digital care. Overall, for development and usage purposes, it is crucial to take the needs and preconditions into account. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00023386; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00023386.