BACKGROUND: Observation of movement quality (MQ) is an indelible element in the process of clinical reasoning for patients with non-specific low back pain (NS-LBP). However, the observation and evaluation of MQ in common daily activities are not standardized within allied health care. This study aims to describe how Dutch allied health care professionals (AHCPs) observe and assess MQ in patients with NS-LBP and whether AHCPs feel the need to have a specific outcome measure for assessing MQ in patients with NS-LBP.METHODS: In this cross-sectional digital survey study, Dutch primary care AHCPs (n = 114) answered one open and three closed questions about MQ in NS-LBP management. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were applied.RESULTS: Qualitative analyses of the answers to the open questions revealed four main themes: 1) movement pattern features, 2) motor control features, 3) environmental influences and 4) non-verbal expressions of pain and exertion. Quantitative analyses clearly indicated that AHCPs observe MQ in the diagnostic (92%), therapeutic (91%) and evaluation phases (86%), that they do not apply any objective measurement of MQ and that 63% of the AHCPs consider it important to have a specific outcome measure to assess MQ. The AHCPs expressed added benefits and critical notes regarding clinical reasoning and quality of care.CONCLUSION: AHCPs recognize the importance of observing MQ in the assessment and management of LBP in a standardized way. However, there is no consensus amongst AHCPs how MQ should be standardized. Prior to standardization, it will be important to develop a theoretical framework to determine which observable and measurable dimensions of MQ are most valid and relevant for patients with NS-LBP to include in the assessment.
Background and aim Self-management support is an integral part of current chronic care guidelines. The success of self-management interventions varies between individual patients, suggesting a need for tailored self-management support. Understanding the role of patient factors in the current decision making of health professionals can support future tailoring of self-management interventions. The aim of this study is to identify the relative importance of patient factors in health professionals’ decision making regarding self-management support. Method A factorial survey was presented to primary care physicians and nurses. The survey consisted of clinical vignettes (case descriptions), in which 11 patient factors were systematically varied. Each care provider received a set of 12 vignettes. For each vignette, they decided whether they would give this patient self-management support and whether they expected this support to be successful. The associations between respondent decisions and patient factors were explored using ordered logit regression. Results The survey was completed by 60 general practitioners and 80 nurses. Self-management support was unlikely to be provided in a third of the vignettes. The most important patient factor in the decision to provide self-management support as well as in the expectation that self-management support would be successful was motivation, followed by patient-provider relationship and illness perception. Other factors, such as depression or anxiety, education level, self-efficacy and social support, had a small impact on decisions. Disease, disease severity, knowledge of disease, and age were relatively unimportant factors. Conclusion This is the first study to explore the relative importance of patient factors in decision making and the expectations regarding the provision of self-management support to chronic disease patients. By far, the most important factor considered was patient’s motivation; unmotivated patients were less likely to receive self-management support. Future tailored interventions should incorporate strategies to enhance motivation in unmotivated patients. Furthermore, care providers should be better equipped to promote motivational change in their patients.
Huntington’s disease (HD) and various spinocerebellar ataxias (SCA) are autosomal dominantly inherited neurodegenerative disorders caused by a CAG repeat expansion in the disease-related gene1. The impact of HD and SCA on families and individuals is enormous and far reaching, as patients typically display first symptoms during midlife. HD is characterized by unwanted choreatic movements, behavioral and psychiatric disturbances and dementia. SCAs are mainly characterized by ataxia but also other symptoms including cognitive deficits, similarly affecting quality of life and leading to disability. These problems worsen as the disease progresses and affected individuals are no longer able to work, drive, or care for themselves. It places an enormous burden on their family and caregivers, and patients will require intensive nursing home care when disease progresses, and lifespan is reduced. Although the clinical and pathological phenotypes are distinct for each CAG repeat expansion disorder, it is thought that similar molecular mechanisms underlie the effect of expanded CAG repeats in different genes. The predicted Age of Onset (AO) for both HD, SCA1 and SCA3 (and 5 other CAG-repeat diseases) is based on the polyQ expansion, but the CAG/polyQ determines the AO only for 50% (see figure below). A large variety on AO is observed, especially for the most common range between 40 and 50 repeats11,12. Large differences in onset, especially in the range 40-50 CAGs not only imply that current individual predictions for AO are imprecise (affecting important life decisions that patients need to make and also hampering assessment of potential onset-delaying intervention) but also do offer optimism that (patient-related) factors exist that can delay the onset of disease.To address both items, we need to generate a better model, based on patient-derived cells that generates parameters that not only mirror the CAG-repeat length dependency of these diseases, but that also better predicts inter-patient variations in disease susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions. Hereto, we will use a staggered project design as explained in 5.1, in which we first will determine which cellular and molecular determinants (referred to as landscapes) in isogenic iPSC models are associated with increased CAG repeat lengths using deep-learning algorithms (DLA) (WP1). Hereto, we will use a well characterized control cell line in which we modify the CAG repeat length in the endogenous ataxin-1, Ataxin-3 and Huntingtin gene from wildtype Q repeats to intermediate to adult onset and juvenile polyQ repeats. We will next expand the model with cells from the 3 (SCA1, SCA3, and HD) existing and new cohorts of early-onset, adult-onset and late-onset/intermediate repeat patients for which, besides accurate AO information, also clinical parameters (MRI scans, liquor markers etc) will be (made) available. This will be used for validation and to fine-tune the molecular landscapes (again using DLA) towards the best prediction of individual patient related clinical markers and AO (WP3). The same models and (most relevant) landscapes will also be used for evaluations of novel mutant protein lowering strategies as will emerge from WP4.This overall development process of landscape prediction is an iterative process that involves (a) data processing (WP5) (b) unsupervised data exploration and dimensionality reduction to find patterns in data and create “labels” for similarity and (c) development of data supervised Deep Learning (DL) models for landscape prediction based on the labels from previous step. Each iteration starts with data that is generated and deployed according to FAIR principles, and the developed deep learning system will be instrumental to connect these WPs. Insights in algorithm sensitivity from the predictive models will form the basis for discussion with field experts on the distinction and phenotypic consequences. While full development of accurate diagnostics might go beyond the timespan of the 5 year project, ideally our final landscapes can be used for new genetic counselling: when somebody is positive for the gene, can we use his/her cells, feed it into the generated cell-based model and better predict the AO and severity? While this will answer questions from clinicians and patient communities, it will also generate new ones, which is why we will study the ethical implications of such improved diagnostics in advance (WP6).
