Background To improve the quality of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) the CR guideline from the Dutch Royal Society for Physiotherapists (KNGF) has been updated. This guideline can be considered an addition to the 2011 Dutch Multidisciplinary CR guideline, as it includes several novel topics. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to formulate conclusions on the efficacy of exercise-based interventions during all CR phases in patients with CHD. Evidence was graded (1–4) according the Dutch evidence-based guideline development (EBRO) criteria. In case of insufficient scientific evidence, recommendations were based on expert opinion. This guideline comprised a structured approach including assessment, treatment and evaluation. Results Recommendations for exercise-based CR were formulated covering the following topics: preoperative physiotherapy, mobilisation during the clinical phase, aerobic exercise, strength training, and relaxation therapy during the outpatient rehabilitation phase, and adoption and monitoring of a physically active lifestyle after outpatient rehabilitation. Conclusions There is strong evidence for the effectiveness of exercise-based CR during all phases of CR. The implementation of this guideline in clinical practice needs further evaluation as well as the maintenance of an active lifestyle after supervised rehabilitation. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tinusjongert/
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a randomized controlled trial and compare the effects on cancer survivors' quality of life in a 12-week group-based multidisciplinary self-management rehabilitation program, combining physical training (twice weekly) and cognitive-behavioral training (once weekly) with those of a 12-week group-based physical training (twice weekly). In addition, both interventions were compared with no intervention.METHODS: Participants (all cancer types, medical treatment completed > or = 3 months ago) were randomly assigned to multidisciplinary rehabilitation (n = 76) or physical training (n = 71). The nonintervention comparison group consisted of 62 patients on a waiting list. Quality of life was measured using the RAND-36. The rehabilitation groups were measured at baseline, after rehabilitation, and 3-month follow-up, and the nonintervention group was measured at baseline and 12 weeks later.RESULTS: The effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation did not outperform those of physical training in role limitations due to emotional problem (primary outcome) or any other domains of quality of life (all p > .05). Compared with no intervention, participants in both rehabilitation groups showed significant and clinically relevant improvements in role limitations due to physical problem (primary outcome; effect size (ES) = 0.66), and in physical functioning (ES = 0.48), vitality (ES = 0.54), and health change (ES = 0.76) (all p < .01).CONCLUSIONS: Adding a cognitive-behavioral training to group-based self-management physical training did not have additional beneficial effects on cancer survivors' quality of life. Compared with the nonintervention group, the group-based self-management rehabilitation improved cancer survivors' quality of life.
BACKGROUND: Since 2011, a tailored, interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation (IHNR) program, covered by the basic healthcare insurance, is offered to advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patients in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). This program is developed to preserve or restore patients' functioning, and to optimize health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It applies an integrated approach to define patients' individual goals and provide rehabilitation care throughout the cancer care continuum. The aim of the current study is to assess the (cost-) effectiveness of the IHNR approach compared to usual supportive care (USC) consisting of monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary care in advanced HNC patients.METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study is designed to compare (cost-)effectiveness of the IHNR to USC for advanced HNC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT). The primary outcome is HRQoL represented in the EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score. Functional HRQoL, societal participation, utility values, return to work (RTW), unmet needs (UN), patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes are secondary outcomes, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, USER-P, EQ-5D-5 L, and study-specific questionnaires, respectively. Both patient groups (required sample size: 64 per arm) are requested to complete the questionnaires at: diagnosis (baseline; T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), 9 months (T3) and 12 months (T4) after start of medical treatment. Differences in outcomes between the intervention and control group will be analyzed using mixed effects models, Chi-square test and descriptive statistics. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be performed by means of a Markov decision model. The CEA will be performed using a societal perspective of the Netherlands.DISCUSSION: This prospective multicenter study will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IHNR compared to USC. RTW and societal participation, included as secondary outcomes, have not been studied sufficiently yet in cancer rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has not yet been implemented as usual care in all centers, which offers the opportunity to perform a controlled clinical study. If demonstrated to be (cost-)effective, national provision of the program can probably be advised.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry on April 24th 2018 ( NTR7140 ).
