Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMPT) is a biopsychosocial treatment approach for patients with chronic pain that comprises at least psychological and physiotherapeutic interventions. Core outcome sets (COSs) are currently developed in different medical fields to standardize and improve the selection of outcome domains, and measurement instruments in clinical trials, to make trial results meaningful, to pool trial results, and to allow indirect comparison between interventions. The objective of this study was to develop a COS of patient-relevant outcome domains for chronic pain in IMPT clinical trials. An international, multiprofessional panel (patient representatives [n = 5], physicians specialized in pain medicine [n = 5], physiotherapists [n = 5], clinical psychologists [n = 5], and methodological researchers [n = 5]) was recruited for a 3-stage consensus study, which consisted of a mixed-method approach comprising an exploratory systematic review, a preparing online survey to identify important outcome domains, a face-to-face consensus meeting to agree on COS domains, and a second online survey (Delphi) establishing agreement on definitions for the domains included. The panel agreed on the following 8 domains to be included into the COS for IMPT: pain intensity, pain frequency, physical activity, emotional wellbeing, satisfaction with social roles and activities, productivity (paid and unpaid, at home and at work, inclusive presentism and absenteeism), health-related quality of life, and patient's perception of treatment goal achievement. The complexity of chronic pain in a biopsychosocial context is reflected in the current recommendation and includes physical, mental, and social outcomes. In a subsequent step, measurement instruments will be identified via systematic reviews.
DOCUMENT
Background: Although interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment (IMPT) programs are widely regarded as treatment of choice for patients with chronic pain, there are signs that many patients are unable to maintain their treatment gains in the long term. To facilitate the maintenance of positive treatment outcomes over time, we developed two relapse prevention strategies. Objective: The main objective of this study was to explore the feasibility of these strategies within the context of IMPT programs. Methods: We performed a feasibility study using 3 workbook prototypes containing either one or both strategies. For a period of 6 months, the workbooks were made available in two IMPT facilities. Qualitative data were collected through a focus group and semistructured interviews. We performed a thematic analysis using a deductive approach with (1) applicability to the treatment program, (2) acceptability of the workbook content, and (3) form, as predefined themes. Results: The final dataset consisted of transcripts from a focus group with health care providers and 11 telephone interviews and 2 additional in-depth interviews with patients. In general, the intervention was perceived as useful, easy to use, and in line with the treatment program. The data also include suggestions to further improve the use of both strategies, including more specific implementation guidelines, revised goal-setting procedure, and development of a mobile health version. However, several factors, including a high dropout rate and small sample size, impact the external validity of our findings. Conclusions: This study should be regarded as a first step in the process of transforming the prototype workbook into an effective intervention for clinical practice. Although these initial results indicate a favorable evaluation of both behavior regulation strategies within the workbook, this study encountered multiple barriers regarding implementation and data collection that limit the generalizability of these results. Future research efforts should specifically address the fidelity of HCPs and patients and should include clear procedures regarding recruitment and use of both relapse prevention strategies during treatment.
LINK
Background: To facilitate adherence to adaptive pain management behaviors after interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment, we developed a mobile health app (AGRIPPA app) that contains two behavior regulation strategies. Objective: The aims of this project are (1) to test the effectiveness of the AGRIPPA app on pain disability; (2) to determine the cost-effectiveness; and (3) to explore the levels of engagement and usability of app users. Methods: We will perform a multicenter randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups. Within the 12-month inclusion period, we plan to recruit 158 adult patients with chronic pain during the initial stage of their interdisciplinary treatment program in one of the 6 participating centers. Participants will be randomly assigned to the standard treatment condition or to the enhanced treatment condition in which they will receive the AGRIPPA app. Patients will be monitored from the start of the treatment program until 12 months posttreatment. In our primary analysis, we will evaluate the difference over time of pain-related disability between the two conditions. Other outcome measures will include health-related quality of life, illness perceptions, pain self-efficacy, app system usage data, productivity loss, and health care expenses. Results: The study was approved by the local Medical Research Ethics Committee in October 2019. As of March 20, 2020, we have recruited 88 patients. Conclusions: This study will be the first step in systematically evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the AGRIPPA app. After 3 years of development and feasibility testing, this formal evaluation will help determine to what extent the app will influence the maintenance of treatment gains over time. The outcomes of this trial will guide future decisions regarding uptake in 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.
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.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: This study evaluates the course of physical fitness and nutritional status during curative therapy for esophageal cancer, after implementation of a prehabilitation program. Additionally, the impact of baseline physical fitness level and severe postoperative complications on the course of individual patients were explored. Materials and methods: This multicenter, observational cohort study included patients with esophageal cancer following curative treatment. Prehabilitation, consisting of supervised exercise training and nutritional counseling was offered as standard care to patients after neoadjuvant therapy, prior to surgery. Primary outcome measures included change of exercise capacity, hand grip strength, self-reported physical functioning, Body Mass Index, and malnutrition risk from diagnosis to 2–6 months postoperatively. Analyses over time were performed using linear mixed models, and linear mixed regression models to investigate the impact of baseline level and severe postoperative complications. Results: Hundred sixty-eight patients were included (mean age 65.9 ± 8.6 years; 78.0 % male). All parameters (except for malnutrition risk) showed a decline during neoadjuvant therapy (p < .05), an improvement during prehabilitation (p < .005) and a decline postoperatively (p < .001), with a high heterogeneity between patients. Change in the outcomes from baseline to postoperatively was not different for patients with or without a severe complication. Better baseline physical fitness and nutritional status were significantly associated with a greater decline postoperatively (p < .001). Conclusion: This study demonstrates a notable decline during neoadjuvant therapy, that fully recovers during prehabilitation, and a subsequent long lasting decline postoperatively. The heterogeneity in the course of physical fitness and nutritional status underlines the importance of individualized monitoring.
DOCUMENT
This article examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sign language interpreting profession drawing on data from a fourth and final survey conducted in June 2021 as part of a series of online “living surveys” during the pandemic. The survey, featuring 331 respondents, highlights significant changes in the occupational conditions and practices of sign language interpreters due to the sudden shift towards remote video-mediated interpreting. The findings reveal a range of challenges faced by interpreters, including the complexities of audience design, lack of backchanneling from deaf consumers, the need for heightened self-monitoring, nuanced conversation management, and team work. Moreover, the study highlights the physical and mental health concerns that have emerged among interpreters as a result of the shift in working conditions, and a need for interpreters to acquire new skills such as coping with the multimodal nature of online interpreting. While the blend of remote, hybrid, and on-site work has introduced certain advantages, it also poses new challenges encompassing workload management, online etiquette, and occupational health concerns. The survey’s findings underscore the resilience and adaptability of SLIs in navigating the shift to remote interpreting, suggesting a lasting transformation in the profession with implications for future practice, training, and research in the post-pandemic era.
DOCUMENT
In solving systemic design challenges designers co-create with professionals from various fields. In the context of innovation in healthcare practices, this study investigates design abilities that healthcare professionals develop by participating in co-design projects. We conducted a mixed-methods research approach consisting of five retrospective interviews with healthcare researchers involved in co-design projects, and a multiple case study (three cases) on the collaboration between design researchers and healthcare professionals. The three cases all aimed at designing tools for healthcare innovation. The cases differ in the healthcare context and the professionals involved: Paediatric physical therapists in the treatment of babies (0-2 years), supervisors (e.g. in assisted living) of people with intellectual disabilities, and academic researchers in social sciences and design research developing e-health applications for elderly people with early stages of dementia. Literature states that healthcare professionals may be competent in specific abilities related to design, but they are not trained to mode-shift and to use two different ways of working for creativity. We found that the healthcare professionals involved in co-design projects developed design ability over time, and that the research setting was supportive. Based on design abilities that the five healthcare researchers explicated in the interviews as having adopted, we suggest eight mode-shift practices related to design, which we investigated in the cases. Findings of the case-study show that two mode-shift practices related to design and innovation are difficult to adopt for healthcare professionals: Generate and synthesize; and keeping track on overview and details. These two design abilities require more training and/or experience than the other six design abilities that ran smoothly in the cases, if healthcare professionals were facilitated in the process. Healthcare professionals specifically relate two of these practices to design: Collaboration and slow down – sprint. This study discusses these findings by referring to an analogy of kayaking on a wild water river: The collaboration aspect of switching between working in a group and by yourself, like a group of kayakers who collaborate in going down stream a river but peddle by themselves in their own boats; the slowdown and sprint aspect, like kayakers who oversee the river in turning waters and sprint in between, rather than go with the flow in a raft.
DOCUMENT
(‘Co’-)Designing for healthy behaviour greatly benefits from integrating insights about individual behaviour and systemic influences. This study reports our experiences in using insights about individual and systemic determinants of behaviour to inform a large co-design project. To do so, we used two design tools that encourage focusing on individual determinants (Behavioural Lenses Approach) and social / systemic aspects of behaviour (Socionas). We performed a qualitative analysis to identify 1) when and how the team applied the design tools, and 2) how the tools supported or obstructed the design process. The results show that both tools had their distinctive uses during the process. Both tools improved the co-design process by deepening the conversations and underpinnings of the prototypes. Using the Behavioural Lenses under the guidance of a behavioural expert proved most beneficial. Furthermore, the Socionas showed the most potential when interacting with stakeholders, i.c. parents and PPTs.
MULTIFILE
