Background: Osteoarthritis is a major public health concern. Despite existing evidence-based treatment options, the health care situation remains unsatisfactory. Digital care options, especially when combined with in-person sessions, seem to be promising. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the needs, preconditions, barriers, and facilitators of blended physical therapy for osteoarthritis. Methods: This Delphi study consisted of interviews, an online questionnaire, and focus groups. Participants were physical therapists, patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis with or without experience in digital care, and stakeholders of the health care system. In the first phase, interviews were conducted with patients and physical therapists. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research. The interviews focused on experiences with digital and blended care. Furthermore, needs, facilitators, and barriers were discussed. In the second phase, an online questionnaire and focus groups served the process to confirm the needs and collect preconditions. The online questionnaire contained statements drawn by the results of the interviews. Patients and physical therapists were invited to complete the questionnaire and participate in one of the three focus groups including (1) patients; (2) physical therapists; and (3) a patient, a physical therapist, and stakeholders from the health care system. The focus groups were used to determine concordance with the results of the interviews and the online questionnaire. Results: Nine physical therapists, seven patients, and six stakeholders confirmed that an increase of acceptance of the digital care part by physical therapists and patients is crucial. One of the most frequently mentioned facilitators was conducting regular in-person sessions. Physical therapists and patients concluded that blended physical therapy must be tailored to the patients' needs. Participants of the last focus group stated that the reimbursement of blended physical therapy needs to be clarified. Conclusions: Most importantly, it is necessary to strengthen the acceptance of patients and physical therapists toward digital care. Overall, fo
LINK
Objective: To investigate the effects of a school-based once-a-week sports program on physical fitness, physical activity, and cardiometabolic health in children and adolescents with a physical disability. Methods: This controlled clinical trial included 71 children and adolescents from four schools for special education [mean age 13.7 (2.9) years, range 8–19, 55% boys]. Participants had various chronic health conditions including cerebral palsy (37%), other neuromuscular (44%), metabolic (8%), musculoskeletal (7%), and cardiovascular (4%) disorders. Before recruitment and based on the presence of school-based sports, schools were assigned as sport or control group. School-based sports were initiated and provided by motivated experienced physical educators. The sport group (n = 31) participated in a once-a-week school-based sports program for 6 months, which included team sports. The control group (n = 40) followed the regular curriculum. Anaerobic performance was assessed by the Muscle Power Sprint Test. Secondary outcome measures included aerobic performance, VO2 peak, strength, physical activity, blood pressure, arterial stiffness, body composition, and the metabolic profile. Results: A significant improvement of 16% in favor of the sport group was found for anaerobic performance (p = 0.003). In addition, the sport group lost 2.8% more fat mass compared to the control group (p = 0.007). No changes were found for aerobic performance, VO2 peak, physical activity, blood pressure, arterial stiffness, and the metabolic profile. Conclusion: Anaerobic performance and fat mass improved following a school-based sports program. These effects are promising for long-term fitness and health promotion, because sports sessions at school eliminate certain barriers for sports participation and adding a once-a-week sports session showed already positive effects for 6 months.
Background: Despite the growing importance of eHealth it is not consistently embedded in the curricula of functional exercise and physical therapy education. Insight in barriers and facilitators for embedding eHealth in education is required for the development of tailored strategies to implement eHealth in curricula. This study aims to identify barriers/facilitators perceived by teachers and students of functional exercise/physical therapy for uptake of eHealth in education. Methods: A qualitative study including six focus groups (two with teachers/four with students) was conducted to identify barriers/facilitators. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Reported barriers and facilitators were identified, grouped and classified using a generally accepted framework for implementation including the following categories: innovation, individual teacher/student, social context, organizational context and political and economic factors. Results: Teachers (n = 11) and students (n = 24) of functional exercise/physical therapy faculties of two universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands participated in the focus groups. A total of 109 barriers/facilitators were identified during the focus groups. Most related to the Innovation category (n = 26), followed by the individual teacher (n = 22) and the organization (n = 20). Teachers and students identified similar barriers/facilitators for uptake of eHealth in curricula: e.g. unclear concept of eHealth, lack of quality and evidence for eHealth, (lack of) capabilities of students/teachers on how to use eHealth, negative/positive attitude of students/teachers towards eHealth. Conclusion: The successful uptake of eHealth in the curriculum of functional exercise/physical therapists needs a systematic multi-facetted approach considering the barriers and facilitators for uptake identified from the perspective of teachers and students. A relatively large amount of the identified barriers and facilitators were overlapping between teachers and students. Starting points for developing effective implementation strategies can potentially be found in those overlapping barriers and facilitators.
MULTIFILE
