BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP), Generalized Joint Hypermobility (GJH) and pain-related fear have influence on physical functioning in adolescents.AIM: to evaluate differences in physical functioning between adolescents with CMP, GJH or the combination of both, and in addition evaluate the potential contribution of pain-related fear.DESIGN: The design of this study was observational and cross-sectional.SETTING: The adolescents with CMP were recruited by a physician in rehabilitation medicine and measured in the university outpatient rehabilitation clinic (Adelante/Maastricht University Medical Center+, the Netherlands). The adolescents without CMP were recruited in the Southern area of the Netherlands and measured in the university outpatient rehabilitation clinic (Adelante/Maastricht University Medical Center+, the Netherlands).POPULATION: Four subgroups of adolescents were included; 21 adolescents with CMP without GJH, 9 adolescents with CMP and GJH, 51 adolescents without CMP without GJH, and 11 adolescents without CMP with GJH.METHODS: Outcome measures were muscle strength and endurance, motor performance, physical activity level, and pain-related fear. Hierarchical regression analyses were used to study differences in physical functioning and the contribution of pain-related fear in adolescents with/without CMP as well as with/without GJH.RESULTS: Adolescents with CMP had decreased muscle strength (P=0.01), endurance (P=0.02), and lower motor performance (P<0.01) compared to adolescents without CMP. Higher levels of pain-related fear were related to decreased muscle strength (P=0.01), endurance (P<0.01), and motor performance (P<0.01). No differences in physical functioning and pain-related fear between hypermobile and non-hypermobile adolescents with CMP were found.CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents with CMP had decreased muscle strength and motor performance associated with increased levels of pain-related fear compared to adolescents without CMP. The association of being hypermobile with physical functioning is not more pronounced in adolescents with CMP.CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: No differences were found in physical functioning and pain-related fear between hypermobile adolescents with CMP compared to non-hypermobile adolescents with CMP. Future rehabilitation treatment in hypermobile adolescents with CMP should also focus on psychological components, such as pain-related fear.
Background: Many intervention development projects fail to bridge the gap from basic research to clinical practice. Instead of theory-based approaches to intervention development, co-design prioritizes the end users’ perspective as well as continuous collaboration between stakeholders, designers, and researchers throughout the project. This alternative approach to the development of interventions is expected to promote the adaptation to existing treatment activities and to be responsive to the requirements of end users. Objective: The first objective was to provide an overview of all activities that were employed during the course of a research project to develop a relapse prevention intervention for interdisciplinary pain treatment programs. The second objective was to examine how co-design may contribute to stakeholder involvement, generation of relevant insights and ideas, and incorporation of stakeholder input into the intervention design. Methods: We performed an embedded single case study and used the double diamond model to describe the process of intervention development. Using all available data sources, we also performed deductive content analysis to reflect on this process. Results: By critically reviewing the value and function of a co-design project with respect to idea generation, stakeholder involvement, and incorporation of stakeholder input into the intervention design, we demonstrated how co-design shaped the transition from ideas, via concepts, to a prototype for a relapse prevention intervention. Conclusions: Structural use of co-design throughout the project resulted in many different participating stakeholders and stimulating design activities. As a consequence, the majority of the components of the final prototype can be traced back to the information that stakeholders provided during the project. Although this illustrates how co-design facilitates the integration of contextual information into the intervention design, further experimental testing is required to evaluate to what extent this approach ultimately leads to improved usability as well as patient outcomes in the context of clinical practice.
LINK
Background: Many intervention development projects fail to bridge the gap from basic research to clinical practice. Instead of theory-based approaches to intervention development, co-design prioritizes the end users' perspective as well as continuous collaboration between stakeholders, designers, and researchers throughout the project. This alternative approach to the development of interventions is expected to promote the adaptation to existing treatment activities and to be responsive to the requirements of end users. Objective: The first objective was to provide an overview of all activities that were employed during the course of a research project to develop a relapse prevention intervention for interdisciplinary pain treatment programs. The second objective was to examine how co-design may contribute to stakeholder involvement, generation of relevant insights and ideas, and incorporation of stakeholder input into the intervention design. Methods: We performed an embedded single case study and used the double diamond model to describe the process of intervention development. Using all available data sources, we also performed deductive content analysis to reflect on this process. Results: By critically reviewing the value and function of a co-design project with respect to idea generation, stakeholder involvement, and incorporation of stakeholder input into the intervention design, we demonstrated how co-design shaped the transition from ideas, via concepts, to a prototype for a relapse prevention intervention. Conclusions: Structural use of co-design throughout the project resulted in many different participating stakeholders and stimulating design activities. As a consequence, the majority of the components of the final prototype can be traced back to the information that stakeholders provided during the project. Although this illustrates how co-design facilitates the integration of contextual information into the intervention design, further experimental testing is required to evaluate to what extent this approach ultimately leads to improved usability as well as patient outcomes in the context of clinical practice.
