Towards a better understanding of our patients. A qualitative study about how patients and their physiotherapists perceive the recovery of shoulder problems.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how people with shoulder problems and their physiotherapists perceive the recovery of shoulder problems. METHOD: We performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients and their physiotherapists. Nine pairs of patients and physiotherapists (n = 18) were recruited. The transcribed interviews were analyzed in a consecutive multistep iterative process using a conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of the interviews resulted in three major themes: 'What do I expect from my recovery?', 'Am I recovering?' and 'When do I consider myself recovered?' The patients and physiotherapists talked similarly about the importance of and interdependency between these themes. Central to these three themes are the analysis of the cause of shoulder problems and the experience of uncertainty. Our analyses suggest that there are conceptual differences in how patients and physiotherapists formulate their expectations about recovery, observe the recovering process, and conceptualize when someone may be considered recovered. Different interpretations by the patients of the information provided by the physical therapists appeared to fuel these differences. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the concept of recovery is defined by patients and physiotherapists in three distinct themes. Within these themes the patients and physiotherapists differ substantially in their conceptualization of the recovery. IMPACT STATEMENT: This insight in the concept of recovery can help patients and physiotherapists better understand each other, enhance the alignment of ideas about the care process, and support making decisions together. Physiotherapists should be aware that patients might interpret their words, explanations, and expectations substantially different.

Evaluating the implementation of personalised outcomes forecasts to optimise supervised exercise therapy in patients with intermittent claudication in the Netherlands: a multimethods study.

BACKGROUND: To support the optimisation of supervised exercise therapy (SET) in patients with intermittent claudication, we developed personalised outcomes forecasts (POFs), which visualise estimated walking distance and quality of life for individual patients. The POFs may enable healthcare professionals, such as physical and exercise therapists, to improve shared decision-making and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess differences in patient outcomes (functional walking distance, maximal walking distance and health-related quality of life) and the level of shared decision-making before and after the implementation of POFs in the conservative treatment of patients with intermittent claudication. METHODS: An interrupted time series design was used to compare preimplementation and postimplementation differences on patient outcomes. Using routinely collected data, differences from baseline to 6 months were compared between patients before and patients after the implementation. To compare levels of shared decision-making, we conducted observations of initial consults within a sample of physical or exercise therapists both before and after the implementation. Audiorecords of observations were scored on shared decision-making using the OPTION-5 instrument. RESULTS: Differences in improvements between patients with whom POFs were discussed (n=317) and patients before the implementation of POFs (n=721) did not reach statistical significance for both functional walking distance (experimental vs. control=+23%, p=0.11) and maximal walking distance (experimental vs. control=+21%, p=0.08). For health-related quality of life, the POFs-informed patients showed a statistically significant greater improvement of 4% (p=0.04). Increased levels of shared decision-making were observed in postimplementation consults (n=20) when compared with preimplementation consults (n=36), as the median OPTION-5 total score showed a statistically significant increase from 45 to 55 points (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Integrating POFs into daily practice of SET for patients with intermittent claudication could assist in improving health-related quality of life and enhancing patient involvement. Using POFs did not result in statistically significant different improvements between groups on walking distances. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8838.

Implementing the Effective Coach2Move Approach for Community-Dwelling Older Adults with Mobility Limitations in Physical Therapist Practice: A Multi-Methods Process Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the adoption of and fidelity to the Coach2Move approach; identify differences between physical therapists with a specialization in geriatrics and physical therapists without a specialization; explore if level of adoption and specialization explain variances in effectiveness; and explore group differences in attitudes and experiences with implementation. METHODS: A multi-methods process evaluation of Coach2Move implementation through 2 education days, 3 peer-assessment meetings, and an adapted electronic health record was performed alongside a cluster randomized stepped-wedge trial comparing regular care physical therapy with Coach2Move. Participants were 36 physical therapists with a specialization (n = 17) and without a specialization (n = 19) who treated 292 community-dwelling older adults. Level of adoption and fidelity were analyzed by comparing pre-implementation scores with scores 1 year later. Coach2Move adoption was measured by e-assessment scores and fidelity through health record indicators. The impact of specialization and adoption on health outcomes was examined using a mixed-model ANOVA. Therapists' attitudes and experiences were collected through a survey based on semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Mean total indicator scores on the e-assessment (adoption of a Coach2Move mindset) increased from baseline 17% (SD = 5%) to 47% (SD = 9%) at follow-up. Physical therapists with a specialization in geriatrics scored higher than physical therapists without (54% [SD = 6%] vs 41% [SD = 6%]). Mean indicator scores on health records (fidelity) increased from 35% (SD = 12%) at baseline to 47% (SD = 15%) at follow-up. Mean scores of physical therapists with a specialization in geriatrics were higher. Level of adoption and specialization (yes/no) did not explain the variance in effectiveness. Physical therapists identified important facilitators, including tailored education and peer-assessment meetings, while adequate reimbursement for the extra time investment was considered a necessity. Different workflows in practices were perceived as a barrier. CONCLUSION: Implementation led to increased adoption and fidelity of the Coach2Move intervention by physical therapists but shows room for improvement. Attitudes towards the approach and its implementation were positive. Future implementation efforts on adoption could be improved by focusing on a fair compensation structure by third party payers and insurance companies and optimizing organizational and financial context within practices. IMPACT: This study evaluated the implementation of Coach2Move, a clinical reasoning approach designed to increase physical activity and improve self-efficacy in older adults. Overall, the study demonstrates the potential of Coach2Move to be effectively adopted by physical therapists. However, addressing therapist compensation and adapting to practice workflows are important considerations for successful large-scale implementation.

Understanding recovery of people recovering from COVID-19 receiving treatment from primary care allied health professionals: a mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: To quantitatively assess changes in recovery of people recovering from COVID-19 treated by a primary care allied health professional, and to qualitatively describe how they dealt with persistent complaints. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This mixed-methods study is part of a Dutch prospective cohort study, from which thirty participants were selected through purposive sampling. Quantitative data on recovery were collected at start of treatment and 6 months. Additionally, by use of semi-structured interviews participants were asked on how persistent complaints influenced their lives, and how they experienced received primary care allied health treatment. RESULTS: Despite reported improvements, most participants still experienced limitations at 6 months. Hospital participants reported a higher severity of complaints, but home participants reported more diverse complaints and a longer recovery. Most participants were satisfied with the primary care allied healthcare. Tender loving care and a listening ear, learning to manage limits, and support and acceptance of building up in small steps were perceived as contributing most to participants' recovery. CONCLUSION: Although improvements were reported on almost all outcomes, most participants suffered from persistent complaints. Despite these persistent complaints, many participants reported being better able to cope with persistent complaints because they had decreased substantially in their intensity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registry (NCT04735744).

Participants recovering from COVID-19 receiving treatment from primary care allied health professionals reported improvements after 6 months, but still experienced persistent complaints.Home participants reported more persistent complaints and a longer recovery from COVID-19 than hospital participants.Personal attention for patients recovering from COVID-19 is necessary. Next to implementing a treatment plan (e.g. physical exercise), primary care allied health professionals should also pay attention to listening to the patient's story and offering support.Interprofessional collaboration between primary care allied health professionals, with a unified message to patients, is essential.

One-year evaluation of people recovering from COVID-19 receiving allied primary healthcare: A nationwide prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A Dutch nationwide prospective cohort study was initiated to investigate recovery trajectories of people recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and costs of treatment by primary care allied health professionals. OBJECTIVES: The study described recovery trajectories over a period of 12 months and associated baseline characteristics of participants recovering from COVID-19 who visited a primary care allied health professional. It also aimed to provide insight into the associated healthcare and societal costs. METHODS: Participants completed participant-reported standardized outcomes on participation, health-related quality of life, fatigue, physical functioning, and costs at baseline (ie, start of the treatment), 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 1451 participants (64 % women, 76 % mild/moderate severity) with a mean (SD) age of 49 (12) years were included. Linear mixed models showed significant and clinically relevant improvements over time in all outcome measures between baseline and 12 months. Between 6 and 12 months, we found significant but not clinically relevant improvements in most outcome measures. Having a worse baseline score was the only baseline factor that was consistently associated with greater improvement over time on that outcome. Total allied healthcare costs (mean €1921; SEM €48) made up about 3% of total societal costs (mean €64,584; SEM €3149) for the average participant in the cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The health status of participants recovering from COVID-19 who visited an allied health professional improved significantly over a 12-month follow-up period, but nearly the improvement occurred between baseline and 6 months. Most participants still reported severe impairments in their daily lives, and generated substantial societal costs. These issues, combined with the fact that baseline characteristics explained little of the variance in recovery over time, underscore the importance of continued attention for the management of people recovering from COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04735744).