Purpose: Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment often leads to physical and psychosocial impairments. Rehabilitation can overcome these limitations and improve quality of life. The aim of this study is to obtain an overview of rehabilitation care for HNC, and to investigate factors influencing rehabilitation provision, in Dutch HNC centers, and to some extent compare it to other countries. Methods: An online survey, covering five themes: organizational structure; rehabilitation interventions; financing; barriers and facilitators; satisfaction and future improvements, among HNC healthcare- and financial professionals of Dutch HNC centers. Results: Most centers (86%) applied some type of rehabilitation care, with variations in organizational structure. A speech language therapist, physiotherapist and dietitian were available in all centers, but other rehabilitation healthcare professionals in less than 60%. Facilitators for providing rehabilitation services included availability of a contact person, and positive attitude, motivation, and expertise of healthcare professionals. Barriers were lack of reimbursement, and patient related barriers including comorbidity, travel (time), low health literacy, limited financial capacity, and poor motivation. Conclusion: Although all HNC centers included offer rehabilitation services, there is substantial practice variation, both nationally and internationally. Factors influencing rehabilitation are related to the motivation and expertise of the treatment team, but also to reimbursement aspects and patient related factors. More research is needed to investigate the extent to which practice variation impacts individual patient outcomes and how to integrate HNC rehabilitation into routine clinical pathways.
MULTIFILE
BackgroundThe Observable Movement Quality scale for patients with low back pain (OMQ-LBP) is a newly developed measurement instrument for use in primary care settings of physical and exercise therapists to assess movement quality (MQ) of patients with low back pain (LBP).ObjectiveThis study aims to determine validity, reliability and feasibility of the OMQ-LBP. The OMQ-LBP consists of a standardized movement circuit (performed twice) consisting of five daily activities problematic for LBP patients, which are scored with an 11-item observation list.MethodsConstruct validity was determined by testing seven hypotheses on associations between constructs (n = 85 patients with LBP) and four hypotheses on known group differences (n = 85 patients with LBP and n = 63 healthy controls; n = 35 matched participant-patients having VAS-pain ≥ 20 mm during and/or after both circuits and healthy controls). Internal consistency was analyzed with Cronbach’s alpha (n = 85 patients with LBP). For inter- and intra-rater reliability Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) values were examined (n = 14 therapists: seven primary care physical therapists and seven exercise therapists). Additionally, content validity and feasibility were determined using thematic analysis of a brief interview with participants, patients (n = 38) and therapists (n = 14).ResultsAfter Bonferroni correction 2/7 associations between constructs and 2/4 significant group differences were confirmed. Cronbach’s alpha was 0,79. The ICC-values of interrater reliability of the OMQ-LBP total score and the duration score were 0.56 and 0.99 and intra-rater reliability 0.82 and 0,93, respectively. Thematic analysis revealed five themes. Three themes elucidate that both patients and therapists perceived the content of the OMQ-LBP as valid. The fourth theme exhibits that OMQ-LBP provides a clear and unambiguous language for MQ in patients with LBP. Theme 5 depicts that the OMQ-LBP seems feasible, but video recording is time-consuming.ConclusionsThe OMQ-LBP is a promising standardized observational assessment of MQ during the five most problematic daily activities in patients with LBP. It is expected that uniform and objective description and evaluation of MQ add value to clinical reasoning and facilitate uniform communication with patients and colleagues.
MULTIFILE
RationaleIn bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) measurements, one pair of electrodes is typically placed dorsal on the right hand (position A) and one pair on the foot. In patients with fragile skin, scars or wounds, this dorsal hand placement is not always possible. This study compares agreement of BIA measurements at seven alternative placements with position A. MethodsBIA measurements were performed with the Bodystat-500 using eight combinations of hand electrodes: at the dorsal side of the hand (position A) or dorsal side hand-forearm (position B and C); at the palmar side of the hand (position D) or palmar side hand-forearm (position E and F) or mixed palmar-dorsal side of the hand (position G and H). ICCs were used to compare alle outcomes to position A. Changes in fat mass ∆FM, fat-free mass ∆FFM and appendicular skeletal muscle mass ∆ASMM were calculated using Kyle’s formula.ResultsSeventy healthy Caucasian participants were measured: median age 22 years, IQR 21-23; mean BMI 22.8 ± 2.5 kg/m². Electrode positions D,G and H showed an ICC 0.99-1.00 for ∆FM, ∆FFM and ∆ASMM with minimal changes in ∆FFM and ∆FM: 0.1–0.4 kg ± 0.3 kg and ∆ASMM: 0.0–0.2 kg ± 0.2 kg. Measurements at position B, C, E, and F showed significant and clinically relevant differences with ∆FM and ∆FFM: 3.8–4.0 kg ± 1.1 kg and ∆ASMM: 2.0–2.1 kg ± 0.6 kg, with ICCs 0.96-0.97.ConclusionAlternatively to the typical electrode placement on the dorsal side of the hand, this study demonstrates that three alternative placements results in an excellent agreement with only minimal changes in FFM, FM and ASMM. In practice, placing electrodes at more proximal positions on the forearm should be avoided. Alternatively, we recommend a mixed or palmar electrode placement on the hand.
DOCUMENT
