Physician awareness of knee and hip pain in the context of coronary heart disease treatment.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of physical activity for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been well documented. The aim of the present study was to determine the level of awareness among general practitioners (GPs) of knee and hip problems in patients with CVD or CVD risk. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Thirty-five Austrian GPs and 1,118 patients were included. The GPs completed an extraction form about the presence or absence of documented evidence of problems related to the knee and/or hip joint within the patient medical data. Patients, in turn, were asked to complete a questionnaire that included the Oxford Knee/Hip Score and the cardiovascular risk-chart established by the European Society of Cardiology. RESULTS: In 748 patients' data from medical records and questionnaires were available. 40.9% of these patients suffered from serious knee pain and 32.1% from hip pain. However, in the medical records, in only 51.3% (knee) and 48.1% (hip) of these pain-patients the problems were documented. CONCLUSION: Joint disorders of the knee and hip problems are considerable barriers to effective physical activity and can therefore contribute to the development of CVD. Our data showed that GP awareness of such knee/hip disorders should be improved.

Protocol for the process evaluation of a counselling intervention designed to educate cancer patients on complementary and integrative health care and promote interprofessional collaboration in this area (the CCC-Integrativ study).

BACKGROUND: Conducting a process evaluation is essential to understand how health interventions work in different healthcare settings. Particularly in the case of complex interventions, it is important to find out whether the intervention could be carried out as planned and which factors had a beneficial or hindering effect on its implementation. The aim of this study is to present the detailed protocol of the process evaluation embedded in the controlled implementation study CCC-Integrativ aiming to implement an interprofessional counselling program for cancer patients on complementary and integrative health care (CIH). METHODS: This mixed methods study will draw upon the "Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research" (CFIR) combined with the concept of "intervention fidelity" to evaluate the quality of the interprofessional counselling sessions, to explore the perspective of the directly and indirectly involved healthcare staff, as well as to analyze the perceptions and experiences of the patients. The qualitative evaluation phase consists of analyzing audio-recorded counselling sessions, as well as individual and group interviews with the involved persons. The quantitative evaluation phase applies questionnaires which are distributed before (T0), at the beginning (T1), in the middle (T2) and at the end (T3) of the intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: This protocol provides an example of how a process evaluation can be conducted parallel to a main study investigating and implementing a complex intervention. The results of this mixed methods research will make it possible to identify strengths and weaknesses of the team-based intervention, and to target more specifically the key factors and structures required to implement healthcare structures to meet patients' unmet needs in the context of CIH. To our knowledge, this study is the first applying the CFIR framework in the context of interprofessional CIH counselling, and its results are expected to provide comprehensive and multidisciplinary management of cancer patients with complex supportive healthcare needs.

[Creating evidence for naturopathic nursing interventions in oncology - a systematic approach]. / Generierung von Evidenz zu naturheilkundlichen Pflegeinterventionen in der Onkologie ­ ein systematisches Verfahren.

BACKGROUND: Nurses working in oncology use a wide range of naturopathic interventions in their daily practice to alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of oncological patients. However, there is no external evidence for many of these interventions. Due to a lack of scientific studies in the field, the aim of the project described here is to develop a standardized procedure to generate evidence on naturopathic interventions, on the basis of which recommendations may be derived for nursing practice. METHOD: The systematic procedure presented here was developed by the working group (WG) Integrative Nursing in Oncology over a period of four years in an iterative process. This process is based on the expert panel members' experience with the development of guidelines and/or quality instruments such as practice standards. RESULT: The systematic methodological approach presented here consists of three successive steps where internal and external evidence have been combined: a scoping review, a structured consensus process with oncology nurses to collect and evaluate naturopathic interventions, and finally a further supplementary literature review based on additional findings of the consensus conference. The procedure was successfully carried out for mucositis, insomnia, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome and chemotherapy-induced polyneuropathy. CONCLUSION: Through the step-by-step synthesis of internal evidence and the best available external evidence, the evidence base for naturopathic nursing interventions in oncology can be generated and practice recommendations derived. The procedure represents a successful theory-practice transfer through structured cooperation between (nursing) scientists and nursing practitioners. In terms of the AWMF classification, the practice recommendations developed in the process described fall somewhere in between an S1 guideline (informal consensus of an expert group) and an S2e guideline (evidence-based).