Referral to and enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation after open-heart surgery in the Netherlands.

AIM: Although referral to phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation (CR) following open-heart surgery is recommended in professional guidelines, according to the literature, participation rates are suboptimal. This study investigates the referral and enrolment rates, as well as determinants for these rates, for phase 2 CR following open-heart surgery via sternotomy. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted among patients who underwent open-heart surgery via sternotomy in a university hospital. Data on referral and enrolment rates and possible factors associated with these rates (age, sex, type of surgery, educational level, living status, employment, income, ethnicity) were collected by a questionnaire or from the patient's medical file. Univariate logistic regression analysis (odds ratio) was used to study associations of patient characteristics with referral and enrolment rates. RESULTS: Of the 717 eligible patients, 364 (51%) completed the questionnaire. Their median age was 68 years (interquartile range 61-74) and 82 (23%) were female. Rates for referral to and enrolment in phase 2 CR were 307 (84%) and 315 (87%), respectively. Female sex and older age were independently associated with both non-referral and non-enrolment. Additional factors for non-enrolment were surgery type (coronary artery bypass grafting with valve surgery and miscellaneous types of relatively rare surgery), living alone and below-average income. CONCLUSION: Phase 2 CR referral and enrolment rates for patients following open-heart surgery were well over 80%, suggesting adequate adherence to professional guidelines. During consultation, physicians and specialised nurses should pay more attention to certain patient groups (at risk of non-enrolment females and elderly). In addition, in-depth qualitative research to identify reasons for non-referral and/or non-enrolment is needed.

Parent-reported family impact in children and young adults with acquired brain injury in the outpatient rehabilitation setting.

Purpose: To increase knowledge/awareness on family impact (FI) after acquired brain injury (ABI) in rehabilitation settings, it is essential to investigate the associations between patient-functioning and impact on families. This has been explored in hospital-based cohorts, but not in rehabilitation settings.Methods: A cross-sectional, multi-center study among parents of children/young adults (aged 5-24 years) with ABI referred to rehabilitation was performed. Patient/injury/family-characteristics were noted, and parents completed the PedsQL™Family-Impact-Module and PedsQL™generic-core-4.0 to assess FI and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Univariate- and multivariable-regression analyses were performed to investigate associations between HRQoL/patient/injury/family-related factors and FI.Results: 246 families participated; patients' median age was 14 year (IQR 11-16), 65 had non-traumatic-brain-injury (nTBI) (26%), 127 were female. FI was found to be considerable (median FIM-score 71.9, IQR:60-85). Especially referral to rehabilitation >6 months after onset, diminished patients' mental/emotional health and HRQoL (child/family factors), and premorbid problems were associated with higher FI.Conclusions: In this rehabilitation cohort, pediatric ABI caused considerably higher FI than in hospital-based studies with referral to rehabilitation >6 months, diminished child/family factors and presence of premorbid problems increasing FI. Assessing and monitoring FI and its associated factors enables professionals to individualize treatment, psychoeducation, support and follow-up.

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. REGISTRATION: The study protocol was a non-medical research and no registration was required. Participants gave written informed consent.

Value-Based Stroke Rehabilitation: Feasibility and Results of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the First Year After Stroke.

PURPOSE: Structured application of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is a key element in Value Based Healthcare. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a broad set of PROMs reflecting similar patient reported health domains as proposed within the International Standard Set of Patient-Centered Outcome Measures After Stroke within the first year after stroke. METHODS: The study included consecutive stroke patients admitted to inpatient or outpatient specialized rehabilitation. PROMs were administered upon admission, discharge (inpatients only), and at 3, 6, and 12 months. PROMs included: EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39NL), Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-Participation (USER-P), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). Feasibility was defined as participation, retention, and response rates. Paired t tests were conducted to analyze their changes over time. RESULTS: Of 485 inpatients and 189 outpatients who were invited, 291 (60.0%) and 82 (43.3%) participated, of whom 45 (15.5%) and 7 (8.5%) dropped out before 12 months, respectively. Two hundred seven (71.1%) and 71 (86.6%) of the inpatients and outpatients returned the questionnaires on all or all but one time points, respectively. Between admission and 12 months statistically significant improvements of PROMs addressing general health and quality of life (EQ-5D), psychiatric functioning (HADS), motor functioning (SIS mobility), and social functioning (USER-P, SIS communication) were seen. The SIS memory scale, the SAQOL-39NL and the FSS did not show any changes. CONCLUSIONS: Participation, retention, and response rates for a comprehensive set of PROMS for stroke in patients in rehabilitation were moderate to good, with clinical improvements seen until 1 year post stroke. The SAQOL-39NL and FSS did not demonstrate changes over time and cannot be recommended for repetitive measurements in this setting. By simplifying the set of questionnaires, participation and response rates may be further enhanced.

Return to Work 2-5 Years After Stroke: A Cross Sectional Study in a Hospital-Based Population.

Purpose To describe factors associated with RTW in patients 2-5 years after stroke. Methods Cross sectional study, including patients 2-5 years after hospitalization for a first-ever stroke, who were <65 years and had been gainfully employed before stroke. Patients completed a set of questionnaires on working status and educational level, physical functioning (Frenchay Activities Index, FAI), mental functioning (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), Coping Orientations to Problems Experienced, (COPE easy) and quality of life (Short-Form(SF)-36 and EQ(Euroqol)-5D). Caregivers completed the Caregiver Strain Index (CSI). Baseline stroke characteristics were gathered retrospectively. Baseline characteristics and current health status were compared between patients who did and did not RTW by means of logistic regression analysis with odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for age and gender. Results Forty-six patients were included, mean age of 47.7 years (SD 9.7), mean time since stroke of 36 months (SD 11.4); 18 (39 %) had RTW. After adjusting for age and gender a shorter length of hospitalization was associated with RTW (OR 0.87; CI 0.77-0.99). Of the current health status, a lower HADS depression score (0.76; 0.63-0.92), a less avoidant coping style (1.99; 0.80-5.00), better scores on the FAI (1.13; 1.03-1.25), the mental component summary score of the SF36 (1.07; 1.01-1.13), the EQ5D (349; 3.33-36687) and the CSI (0.68; 0.50-0.92) were associated with the chance of RTW. Conclusions A minority of working patients RTW after stroke; a shorter duration of the initial hospitalization was associated with a favorable work outcome. The significant association between work status and activities, mental aspects and quality of life underlines the need to develop effective interventions supporting RTW.

Measuring educational needs among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) using the Dutch version of the Educational Needs Assessment Tool (D-ENAT).

OBJECTIVE: The Educational Needs Assessment Tool (ENAT) was developed in the United Kingdom (UK) to systematically assess the educational needs of patients with rheumatic diseases. The aim of the present study was to describe the educational needs of Dutch patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by means of a Dutch version of the ENAT (D-ENAT). METHODS: The D-ENAT was sent to a random sample of 244 SLE patients registered at the outpatient clinic of a university hospital. D-ENAT consists of 39 items in seven domains. The D-ENAT domain scores range from 0-16 to 0-28 (higher scoring equals higher educational needs) depending of the number of items in the domain. 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 the extent of information need (1-4: nothing-everything) were recorded. Univariate regression analysis was used to examine the D-ENAT's potential determinants. RESULTS: The response rate was 122 out of 244 (50%). The mean (% of maximum score) educational needs scores were 56% for 'D-ENAT total score', 62% for 'Self-help measures', 60% for 'Disease process', 58% for 'Feelings', 56% for 'Treatments', 50% for 'Movement', 49% for 'Support systems' and 46% for 'Managing pain'. Being female was significantly associated with higher scoring on the D-ENAT total score (ß 23.0; 95% CI 5.9, 40.3). CONCLUSION: SLE patients demonstrated substantial educational needs, especially in the domains: 'Self-help measures', 'Disease process' and 'Feelings'. The validity and practical applicability of the D-ENAT to make an inventory of SLE patients' educational needs requires further investigation.

Illness perceptions of stroke survivors: Predictors and changes over time - A 1 year follow-up study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the illness perceptions (IP) of stroke patients in the first year post stroke; to identify patient clusters with comparable IP trajectories and determine their associations with health. METHODS: This prospective study included consecutive stroke patients after medical rehabilitation. Three and 12 months post stroke they completed the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ) and questionnaires on physical and mental health. All eight IP and their changes over time were described. Clusters of patients with comparable IP trajectories were constructed by k-means clustering, with subsequent comparison of patient characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the association between IP clusters and 12-month mental health. RESULTS: Hundred-and-eighty-four patients were included (men n = 107 [58.2%]; mean age 61.1 [SD 12.7] years). At 3 months, the scores of the IP coherence (mean 3.0, SD 2.3) and treatment control (mean 3.2, SD 2.5) were lowest (best), and consequences (mean 6.1, SD 2.8) and anticipated timeline (mean 6.0, SD 2.7) were highest (worst). At 12 months, the timeline and treatment control scores had significantly worsened. Three clusters of the trajectories of IP were identified, and designated as 'favourable', 'average', and 'unfavourable'. The unfavourable cluster was significantly associated with worse physical and mental health at 3 months (unadjusted) and depressive symptoms at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Stroke patients' IP partly changed between 3 and 12 months post stroke. Patients with an unfavourable IP trajectory had a higher chance of depressive symptoms at 12 months. Illness perceptions could be considered as an additional target of treatment.

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. Implications for Rehabilitation In a sample of 190 patients in rehabilitation with access to email, almost all patients used one or more electronic devices almost every day of the week, with the most frequently used devices were: a PC/laptop, smartphone and tablet. Most of the patients wish to incorporate electronic devices in their rehabilitation process and prefer to use those devices to have insight in their health record, communication with peers and scheduling appointments with health professionals. To better assist patients with e-health in rehabilitation care in the future, preferences could be implemented in rehabilitation care by using the most commonly used devices.

Why the uptake of eRehabilitation programs in stroke care is so difficult-a focus group study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.