Introduction: Illness Perceptions (IPs) may play a role in the management of persistent low back pain. The mediation and/or moderation effect of IPs on primary outcomes in physiotherapy treatment is unknown. Methods: A multiple single-case experimental design, using a matched care physiotherapy intervention, with three phases (phases A-B-A’) was used including a 3 month follow up (phase A’). Primary outcomes: pain intensity, physical functioning and pain interference in daily life. Analyzes: linear mixed models, adjusted for fear of movement, catastrophizing, avoidance, sombreness and sleep. Results: Nine patients were included by six different primary care physiotherapists. Repeated measures on 196 data points showed that IPs Consequences, Personal control, Identity, Concern and Emotional response had a mediation effect on all three primary outcomes. The IP Personal control acted as a moderator for all primary outcomes, with clinically relevant improvements at 3 month follow up. Conclusion: Our study might indicate that some IPs have a mediating or a moderating effect on the outcome of a matched care physiotherapy treatment. Assessing Personal control at baseline, as a relevant moderator for the outcome prognosis of successful physiotherapy management of persistent low back pain, should be further eplored.
Individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning are at increased risk to develop a substance use disorder—however, effective treatment programs adapted to this target group are scarce. This study evaluated the effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning and substance use disorder. Take it Personal!+ is a personalized treatment based on motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy supported by an mHealth application. Data were collected in a nonconcurrent multiple baseline single-case experimental design across individuals with four phases (i.e., baseline, treatment, posttreatment, and follow-up). Twelve participants were randomly allocated to baseline lengths varying between 7 and 11 days. Substance use quantity was assessed during baseline, treatment, and posttreatment with a daily survey using a mobile application. Visual analysis was supported with statistical analysis of the daily surveys by calculating three effect size measures in 10 participants (two participants were excluded from this analysis due to a compliance rate below 50%). Secondary, substance use severity was assessed with standardized questionnaires at baseline, posttreatment, and follow-up and analyzed by calculating the Reliable Change Index. Based on visual analysis of the daily surveys, 10 out of 12 participants showed a decrease in mean substance use quantity from baseline to treatment and, if posttreatment data were available, to posttreatment. Statistical analysis showed an effect of Take it Personal!+ in terms of a decrease in daily substance use in 8 of 10 participants from baseline to treatment and if posttreatment data were available, also to posttreatment. In addition, data of the standardized questionnaires showed a decrease in substance use severity in 8 of 12 participants. These results support the effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in decreasing substance use in individuals with mild intellectual disabilities or borderline intellectual functioning.
Abstract: Background For patients, seclusion during psychiatric treatment is often a traumatic experience. To prevent such experiences, adjustments in the design of seclusion rooms have been recommended. Methods As there have been no empirical studies on the matter, we used a quasi-experimental design to compare the experiences in seclusion of two groups of patients: 26 who had been secluded in a room designed according to the principles of healing environment, a so called ‘Enriched Environment Seclusion room’ (EES), and 27 who had been secluded in a regular seclusion (RS) room. The enrichment included audio-visual facilities, a fixed toilet, a couch and a self-service system to adjust light, colour, blinds and temperature according to the patient’s preferences. Insight into their experiences was obtained using the Patient View-of-Seclusion Questionnaire, which comprises nine statements on seclusion, supplemented with open-ended questions. Results The responses regarding seclusion experiences between the two groups did not differ significantly (U = 280.00, p = .21, r = -.17). Although those who had been secluded in the specially designed room had greatly appreciated the opportunities for distraction, and those who had been secluded in a regular seclusion room expressed the need for more distracting activities during seclusion, both groups described seclusion as a dreadful experience. If seclusion cannot be avoided, patients recommend facilities for distraction (such as those provided in an enriched environment seclusion room) to be available. Conclusion Whatever the physical environment and facilities of a seclusion room, we may thus conclude that seclusion is a burdensome experience.
