Barriers and facilitators to implementing self-directed therapy activities in inpatient rehabilitation settings.

BACKGROUND: Self-directed therapy activities are not currently part of routine care during inpatient rehabilitation. Understanding patient and clinician perspectives on self-directed therapy is key to increasing implementation. The aim of this study was to investigate barriers and facilitators to implementing a self-directed therapy programme ("My Therapy") in adult inpatient rehabilitation settings. METHODS: My Therapy was recommended by physiotherapists and occupational therapists and completed by rehabilitation inpatients independently, outside of supervised therapy sessions. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and patients were invited to complete an online questionnaire comprising open-ended questions on barriers and facilitators to prescribing and participating in My Therapy. A directed content analysis of free-text responses was undertaken, with data coded using categories of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model). RESULTS: Eleven patients and 20 clinicians completed the questionnaire. Patient capability was reported to be facilitated by comprehensive education by clinicians, with mixed attitudes towards the format of the programme booklet. Clinician capability was facilitated by staff collaboration. One benefit was the better use of downtime between the supervised therapy sessions, but opportunities for patients to engage in self-directed therapy were compromised by the lack of space to complete the programme. Clinician opportunity was reported to be provided via organisational support but workload was a reported barrier. Patient motivation to engage in self-directed therapy was reported to be fostered by feeling empowered, engaged, and encouraged to participate. Clinician motivation was associated with belief in the value of the programme. CONCLUSION: Despite some barriers to rehabilitation patients independently practicing therapeutic exercises and activities outside of supervised sessions, both clinicians and patients agreed it should be considered as routine practice. To do this, patient time, ward space, and staff collaboration are required. Further research is needed to scale-up the implementation of the My Therapy programme and evaluate its effectiveness.

Local cooling for relieving pain from perineal trauma sustained during childbirth.

BACKGROUND: Perineal trauma is common during childbirth and may be painful. Contemporary maternity practice includes offering women numerous forms of pain relief, including the local application of cooling treatments. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review last updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of localised cooling treatments compared with no treatment, placebo, or other cooling treatments applied to the perineum for pain relief following perineal trauma sustained during childbirth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 October 2019) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials (RCTs) that compared a localised cooling treatment applied to the perineum with no treatment, placebo, or another cooling treatment applied to relieve pain related to perineal trauma sustained during childbirth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were double checked for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs that enrolled 1233 women randomised to the use of one cooling treatment (ice, cold gel pad, cooling plus compression, cooling plus compression plus (being) horizontal) compared with another cooling treatment, no treatment, or placebo (water pack, compression). The included trials were at low or uncertain risk of bias overall, with the exception that the inability to blind participants and personnel to group allocation meant that we rated all trials at unclear or high risk for this domain. We undertook a number of comparisons to evaluate the different treatments. Cooling treatment (ice pack or cold gel pad) versus no treatment There was limited very low-certainty evidence that cooling treatment may reduce women's self-reported perineal pain within four to six hours (mean difference (MD) -4.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -3.85 on a 10-point scale; 1 study, 100 participants) or between 24 and 48 hours of giving birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94; 1 study, 316 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the various measures of wound healing, for example, wound edges gaping when inspected five days after giving birth (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.58 to 11.33; 1 study, 315 participants). Women generally rated their satisfaction with perineal care similarly following cooling or no treatment. The potential exception was that there may be a trivially lower mean difference of -0.1 on a five-point scale of psychospiritual comfort with cooling treatment, that is unlikely to be of clinical importance. Cooling treatment (cold gel pad) + compression versus placebo (gel pad + compression) There was limited low-certainty evidence that there may be a trivial MD of -0.43 in pain on a 10-point scale at 24 to 48 hours after giving birth (95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; 1 study, 250 participants) when a cooling treatment plus compression from a well-secured perineal pad was compared with the placebo. Levels of perineal oedema may be similar for the two groups (low-certainty evidence) and perineal bruising was not observed. There was low-certainty evidence that women may rate their satisfaction as being slightly higher with perineal care in the cold gel pad and compression group (MD 0.88, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.38; 1 trial, 250 participants). Cooling treatment (ice pack) versus placebo (water pack) One study reported that no women reported pain after using an ice pack or a water pack when asked within 24 hours of giving birth. There was low-certainty evidence that oedema may be similar for the two groups when assessed at four to six hours (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 1 study, 63 participants) or within 24 hours of giving birth (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.59). No women were observed to have perineal bruising at these times. The trialists reported that no women in either group experienced any adverse effects on wound healing. There was very low-certainty evidence that women may rate their views and experiences with the treatments similarly (for example, satisfied with treatment: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.08; 63 participants). Cooling treatment (ice pack) versus cooling treatment (cold gel pad) The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of using ice packs or cold gel pads on women's self-rated perineal pain, on perineal bruising, or on perineal oedema at four to six hours or within 24 hours of giving birth. Perineal oedema may persist 24 to 48 hours after giving birth in women using the ice packs (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.7; 2 trials, 264 participants; very low-certainty). The risk of gaping wound edges five days after giving birth may be decreased in women who had used ice packs (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.01; 215 participants; very low-certainty). However, this did not appear to persist to day 10 (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 14.81; 214 participants). Women may rate their opinion of treatment less favourably following the use of ice packs five days after giving birth (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; 1 study, 49 participants) and when assessed on day 10 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92; 1 study, 208 participants), both very low-certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited very low-certainty evidence that may support the use of cooling treatments, in the form or ice packs or cold gel pads, for the relief of perineal pain in the first two days following childbirth. It is likely that concurrent use of several treatments is required to adequately address this issue, including prescription and non-prescription analgesia. Studies included in this review involved the use of cooling treatments for 10 to 20 minutes, and although no adverse effects were noted, these findings came from studies of relatively small numbers of women, or were not reported at all. The continued lack of high-certainty evidence of the benefits of cooling treatments should be viewed with caution, and further well-designed trials should be conducted.

Patients' perceptions of participating in self-directed activities outside supervised occupational and physiotherapy within inpatient and home-based rehabilitation settings: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: To investigate patients' perceptions of participating in self-directed activities, outside supervised occupational and physiotherapy, within rehabilitation settings. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 16 patients and in three instances, their carers, from three health services in Victoria, Australia, two offering inpatient and one offering home-based rehabilitation care. A thematic analysis was performed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Themes identified included the role of the clinicians in encouraging patients and instilling confidence, giving feedback and "just being there"; considerations in program delivery, including different formats, support from peers and relatives, and program familiarity and flexibility; patients' different intrinsic driving and limiting forces, including following orders, seeing results, desiring autonomy and having an "inner athlete"; and the environment, including functional activities, space, equipment, time and availability. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and their carers reported positive experiences of participating in self-directed therapy programs within rehabilitation settings, with programs perceived as beneficial in optimising recovery. Patients reported a range of driving and limiting factors in relation to completing self-directed activities. Understanding these factors, relating to the patient, their environment and other people, is critical for clinicians so that they can modify their delivery accordingly, ensuring uptake and sustained implementation of self-directed activities in rehabilitation care.

Patients and their carers reported positive experiences of participating in self-directed therapy programs within rehabilitation settings.Self-directed therapy programs were seen to be beneficial in optimising recovery and helping patients return to previous levels of function.Understanding patients' specific driving and limiting factors in relation to completing self-directed activities, is critical for clinicians so that they can modify their delivery accordingly, ensuring uptake and sustained implementation of self-directed therapy in rehabilitation care.

Desmoglein-2 as a cancer modulator: friend or foe?

Desmoglein-2 (DSG2) is a calcium-binding single pass transmembrane glycoprotein and a member of the large cadherin family. Until recently, DSG2 was thought to only function as a cell adhesion protein embedded within desmosome junctions designed to enable cells to better tolerate mechanical stress. However, additional roles for DSG2 outside of desmosomes are continuing to emerge, particularly in cancer. Herein, we review the current literature on DSG2 in cancer and detail its impact on biological functions such as cell adhesion, proliferation, migration, invasion, intracellular signaling, extracellular vesicle release and vasculogenic mimicry. An increased understanding of the diverse repertoire of the biological functions of DSG2 holds promise to exploit this cell surface protein as a potential prognostic biomarker and/or target for better patient outcomes. This review explores the canonical and non-canonical functions of DSG2, as well as the context-dependent impacts of DSG2 in the realm of cancer.