Objective: To describe the development of a goal-directed movement intervention in two medical wards, including recommendations for implementation and evaluation. Design: Implementation Research. Setting: Pulmonology and nephrology/gastroenterology wards of the University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands. Participants: Seven focus groups were executed including 28 nurses, 7 physical therapists and 15 medical specialists. Patients' perceptions were repeatedly assessed during the iterative steps of the intervention development. Intervention: Interventions were targeted to each ward's specific character, following an Intervention Mapping approach using literature and research meetings. Main measures: Intervention components were linked to Behavior Change Techniques and implementation strategies will be selected using the Expert Recommendation Implementing Change tool. Evaluation outcomes like number of patients using the movement intervention will be measured, based on the taxonomy of Proctor. Results: The developed intervention consists of: insight in patients movement behavior (monitoring & feedback), goal setting (goals & planning) and adjustments to the environment (associations & antecedents). The following implementation strategies are recommended: to conduct educational meetings, prepare & identify champions and audit & provide feedback. To measure service and client outcomes, the mean level of physical activity per ward can be evaluated and the Net Promoter Score can be used. Conclusion(s): This study shows the development of a goal-directed movement intervention aligned with the needs of healthcare professionals. This resulted in an intervention consisting of feedback & monitoring of movement behavior, goal setting and adjustments in the environment. Using a step-by-step iterative implementation model to guide development and implementation is recommended.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To evaluate the preliminary effectiveness of a goal-directed movement intervention using a movement sensor on physical activity of hospitalized patients. Design: Prospective, pre-post study. Setting: A university medical center. Participants: Patients admitted to the pulmonology and nephrology/gastro-enterology wards. Intervention: The movement intervention consisted of (1) self-monitoring of patients' physical activity, (2) setting daily movement goals and (3) posters with exercises and walking routes. Physical activity was measured with a movement sensor (PAM AM400) which measures active minutes per day. Main measures: Primary outcome was the mean difference in active minutes per day pre- and post-implementation. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, discharge destination, immobility-related complications, physical functioning, perceived difficulty to move, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality and the adoption of the intervention. Results: A total of 61 patients was included pre-implementation, and a total of 56 patients was included post-implementation. Pre-implementation, patients were active 38 ± 21 minutes (mean ± SD) per day, and post-implementation 50 ± 31 minutes per day (Δ12, P = 0.031). Perceived difficulty to move decreased from 3.4 to 1.7 (0-10) (Δ1.7, P = 0.008). No significant differences were found in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions: The goal-directed movement intervention seems to increase physical activity levels during hospitalization. Therefore, this intervention might be useful for other hospitals to stimulate inpatient physical activity.
DOCUMENT
Background: Fifty to eighty percent of patients suffering from chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience a form of sexual dysfunction (SD), even after renal transplantation. Despite this, inquiring about SD is often not included in the daily practice of renal care providers. Objectives: This paper explores the perspectives of renal social workers regarding sexual care for patients and evaluates their practice,attitude towards responsibility and knowledge of SD. Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a 41-item online survey. Participants: Seventy-nine members of the Dutch Federation of Social Workers Nephrology. Results: It was revealed that 60% of respondents discussed SD with a fifth of their patients. Frequency of discussion was associated with experience (p¼0.049), knowledge (p¼0.001), supplementary education (p¼0.006), and the availability of protocols on sexual care (p¼0.007).Main barriers towards discussing SD consisted of ‘culture and religion’ (51.9%), ‘language and ethnicity’ (49.4%), and ‘presence of a third person’ (45.6%). Sufficient knowledge of SD was present in 28% of respondents. The responsibility for discussion was 96% nephrologists and 81% social workers. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that a part of Dutch nephrology social workers do not provide sexual care regularly, due to insufficient experience and sexual knowledge, absence of privacy and protocols and barriers based on cultural diversity. According to the respondents the responsibility for this aspect of care should be multidisciplinary. Recommendations include a need for further education on the topic, private opportunities to discuss SD and multidisciplinary guidelines on sexual care
MULTIFILE
