Background: Multimodal prehabilitation programs are effective at reducing complications after colorectal surgery in patients with a high risk of postoperative complications due to low aerobic capacity and/or malnutrition. However, high implementation fidelity is needed to achieve these effects in real-life practice. This study aimed to investigate the implementation fidelity of an evidence-based prehabilitation program in the real-life context of a Dutch regional hospital.Methods: In this observational cohort study with multiple case analyses, all patients who underwent colorectal surgery from January 2023 to June 2023 were enrolled. Patients meeting the criteria for low aerobic capacity or malnutrition were advised to participate in a prehabilitation program. According to recent scientific insights and the local care context, this program consisted of four exercise modalities and three nutrition modalities. Implementation fidelity was investigated by evaluating: (1) coverage (participation rate), (2) duration (number of days between the start of prehabilitation and surgery), (3) content (delivery of prescribed intervention modalities), and (4) frequency (attendance of sessions and compliance with prescribed parameters). An aggregated percentage of content and frequency was calculated to determine overall adherence.Results: Fifty-eight patients intended to follow the prehabilitation care pathway, of which 41 performed a preoperative risk assessment (coverage 80%). Ten patients (24%) were identified as high-risk and participated in the prehabilitation program (duration of 33-84 days). Adherence was high (84-100%) in five and moderate (72-73%) in two patients. Adherence was remarkably low (25%, 53%, 54%) in three patients who struggled to execute the prehabilitation program due to multiple physical and cognitive impairments.Conclusion: Implementation fidelity of an evidence-based multimodal prehabilitation program for high-risk patients preparing for colorectal surgery in real-life practice was moderate because adherence was high for most patients, but low for some patients. Patients with low adherence had multiple impairments, with consequences for their preparation for surgery. For healthcare professionals, it is recommended to pay attention to high-risk patients with multiple impairments and further personalize the prehabilitation program. More knowledge about identifying and treating high-risk patients is needed to provide evidence-based recommendations and to obtain higher effectiveness.
LINK
Abstract: Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma have a high prevalence and disease burden. Blended self-management interventions, which combine eHealth with face-to-face interventions, can help reduce the disease burden. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions on health-related effectiveness and process outcomes for people with COPD or asthma. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library, Emcare, and Embase were searched in December 2018 and updated in November 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: A total of 15 COPD and 7 asthma randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis of COPD studies found that the blended intervention showed a small improvement in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-0.85) and a significant improvement in the quality of life (QoL; SMD 0.81; 95% CI 0.11-1.51). Blended intervention also reduced the admission rate (relative ratio [RR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.97). In the COPD systematic review, regarding the exacerbation frequency, both studies found that the intervention reduced exacerbation frequency (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.56). A large effect was found on BMI (d=0.81; 95% CI 0.25-1.34); however, the effect was inconclusive because only 1 study was included. Regarding medication adherence, 2 of 3 studies found a moderate effect (d=0.73; 95% CI 0.50-0.96), and 1 study reported a mixed effect. Regarding self-management ability, 1 study reported a large effect (d=1.15; 95% CI 0.66-1.62), and no effect was reported in that study. No effect was found on other process outcomes. The meta-analysis of asthma studies found that blended intervention had a small improvement in lung function (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.62) and QoL (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.50) and a moderate improvement in asthma control (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.40-0.93). A large effect was found on BMI (d=1.42; 95% CI 0.28-2.42) and exercise capacity (d=1.50; 95% CI 0.35-2.50); however, 1 study was included per outcome. There was no effect on other outcomes. Furthermore, the majority of the 22 studies showed some concerns about the ROB, and the quality of evidence varied. Conclusions: In patients with COPD, the blended self-management interventions had mixed effects on health-related outcomes, with the strongest evidence found for exercise capacity, QoL, and admission rate. Furthermore, the review suggested that the interventions resulted in small effects on lung function and QoL and a moderate effect on asthma control in patients with asthma. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions for patients with COPD and asthma; however, more research is needed. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019119894; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=119894
DOCUMENT
Wat is er op dit moment (medio augustus 2020) in de wetenschappelijke literatuur bekend over (de effecten van maatregelen tegen) de verspreiding van het coronavirus en wat is de betekenis daarvan voor organisatoren van evenementen?
DOCUMENT
