Parental involvement is a crucial force in children’s development, learning and success at school and in life [1]. Participation, defined by the World Health Organization as ‘a person’s involvement in life situations’ [2] for children means involvement in everyday activities, such as recreational, leisure, school and household activities [3]. Several authors use the term social participation emphasising the importance of engagement in social situations [4, 5]. Children’s participation in daily life is vital for healthy development, social and physical competencies, social-emotional well-being, sense of meaning and purpose in life [6]. Through participation in different social contexts, children gather the knowledge and skills needed to interact, play, work, and live with other people [4, 7, 8]. Unfortunately, research shows that children with a physical disability are at risk of lower participation in everyday activities [9]; they participate less frequently in almost all activities compared with children without physical disabilities [10, 11], have fewer friends and often feel socially isolated [12-14]. Parents, in particular, positively influence the participation of their children with a physical disability at school, at home and in the community [15]. They undertake many actions to improve their child’s participation in daily life [15, 16]. However, little information is available about what parents of children with a physical disability do to enable their child’s participation, what they come across and what kind of needs they have. The overall aim of this thesis was to investigate parents’ actions, challenges, and needs while enhancing the participation of their school-aged child with a physical disability. In order to achieve this aim, two steps have been made. In the first step, the literature has been examined to explore the topic of this thesis (actions, challenges and needs) and to clarify definitions for the concepts of participation and social participation. Second, for the purposes of giving breadth and depth of understanding of the topic of this thesis a mixed methods approach using three different empirical research methods [17-19], was applied to gather information from parents regarding their actions, challenges and needs.
OBJECTIVE:To develop a blended physiotherapeutic intervention for patients with non-specific low back pain (e-Exercise LBP) and evaluate its proof of concept.DESIGN:Focus groups with patients, physiotherapists, and eHealth and LBP experts were conducted to investigate values according to the development of e-Exercise LBP. Proof of concept was evaluated in a multicentre study.SETTING:Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices (n=21 therapists).PARTICIPANTS:Adults with non-specific LBP (n=41).INTERVENTION:e-Exercise LBP was developed based on clinical LBP guidelines and the focus groups, using the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap. Face-to-face physiotherapy sessions were integrated with a web application consisting of 12 information lessons, video-supported exercises and a physical activity module with the option to gradually increase individuals' level of physical activity. The intervention could be tailored to patients' risk of persistent disabling LBP, according to the STarT Back Screening Tool.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Functional disability, pain, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and fear-avoidance beliefs, measured at baseline and 12 weeks.RESULTS:After 12 weeks, improvements were found in functional disability [Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: mean difference (MD) -12.2/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.3 to 16.1], pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale: MD -2.8/10; 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6), subjective physical activity (Short Questionnaire to Assess Health Enhancing Physical Activity: MD 11.5minutes/day; 95% CI -47.8 to 24.8) and objective sedentary behaviour (ActiGraph: MD -23.0minutes/day; 95% CI -8.9 to 55.0). Small improvements were found in objective physical activity and fear-avoidance beliefs. The option to gradually increase physical activity was activated for six patients (15%). On average, patients received seven face-to-face sessions alongside the web application.CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study provide the first indication of the effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP, particularly for disability and pain among patients with LBP. Future studies will focus on end-user experiences and (cost-) effectiveness.KEYWORDS:Low back pain; Physiotherapy; Telemedicine; e-Health
Objective To develop and internally validate a prognostic model to predict chronic pain after a new episode of acute or subacute non-specific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain in patients presenting to physiotherapy primary care, emphasising modifiable biomedical, psychological and social factors. Design A prospective cohort study with a 6-month follow-up between January 2020 and March 2023. Setting 30 physiotherapy primary care practices. Participants Patients with a new presentation of non-specific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain, with a duration lasting no longer than 12 weeks from onset. Baseline measures Candidate prognostic variables collected from participants included age and sex, neck pain symptoms, work-related factors, general factors, psychological and behavioural factors and the remaining factors: therapeutic relation and healthcare provider attitude. Outcome measures Pain intensity at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months on a Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) after inclusion. An NPRS score of ≥3 at each time point was used to define chronic neck pain. Results 62 (10%) of the 603 participants developed chronic neck pain. The prognostic factors in the final model were sex, pain intensity, reported pain in different body regions, headache since and before the neck pain, posture during work, employment status, illness beliefs about pain identity and recovery, treatment beliefs, distress and self-efficacy. The model demonstrated an optimism-corrected area under the curve of 0.83 and a corrected R2 of 0.24. Calibration was deemed acceptable to good, as indicated by the calibration curve. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test yielded a p-value of 0.7167, indicating a good model fit. Conclusion This model has the potential to obtain a valid prognosis for developing chronic pain after a new episode of acute and subacute non-specific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain. It includes mostly potentially modifiable factors for physiotherapy practice. External validation of this model is recommended.
LINK
