Background: Treatment of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) currently consists of a combination of noninvasive therapies and may be supported by e-Health. It is, however, unclear if physical therapists and patients are positive towards the use of e-Health. Purpose: To assess the needs, facilitators and barriers of the use of an e-Health application from the perspective of both orofacial physical therapists and patients with TMD. Methods: A descriptive qualitative study was performed. Eleven physical therapists and nine patients with TMD were interviewed using a topic guide. Thematic analysis was applied, and findings were ordered according to four themes: acceptance of e-Health, expected utility, usability and convenience. Results: Physical therapists identified the need for e-Health as a supporting application to send questionnaires, animated exercises and evaluation tools. Key facilitators for both physical therapists and patients for implementing e-Health included the increase in self-efficacy, support of data collection and personalization of the application. Key barriers are the increase of screen time, the loss of personal contact, not up-to-date information and poor design of the application. Conclusions: Physical therapists and patients with TMD are positive towards the use of e-Health, in a blended form with the usual rehabilitation care process for TMD complaints.Implications for rehabilitation The rehabilitation process of temporomandibular complaints may be supported by the use of e-Health applications. Physical therapists and patients with temporomandibular disorders are positive towards the use of e-Health as an addition to the usual care. Especially during the treatment process, there is a need for clear animated videos and reminders for the patients.
Rationale, aims and objective: Primary Care Plus (PC+) focuses on the substitution of hospital-based medical care to the primary care setting without moving hospital facilities. The aim of this study was to examine whether population health and experience of care in PC+ could be maintained. Therefore, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and experienced quality of care from a patient perspective were compared between patients referred to PC+ and to hospital-based outpatient care (HBOC). Methods: This cohort study included patients from a Dutch region, visiting PC+ or HBOC between December 2014 and April 2018. With patient questionnaires (T0, T1 and T2), the HRQoL and experience of care were measured. One-to-two nearest neighbour calliper propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for potential selection bias. Outcomes were compared using marginal linear models and Pearson chi-square tests. Results: One thousand one hundred thirteen PC+ patients were matched to 606 HBOC patients with well-balanced baseline characteristics (SMDs <0.1). Regarding HRQoL outcomes, no significant interaction terms between time and group were found (P > .05), indicating no difference in HRQoL development between the groups over time. Regarding experienced quality of care, no differences were found between PC+ and HBOC patients. Only travel time was significantly shorter in the HBOC group (P ≤ .001). Conclusion: Results show equal effects on HRQoL outcomes over time between the groups. Regarding experienced quality of care, only differences in travel time were found. Taken as a whole, population health and quality of care were maintained with PC+ and future research should focus more on cost-related outcomes.
Background and Objective: To develop a health care value framework for physical therapy primary health care organizations including a definition. Method: A scoping review was performed. First, relevant studies were identified in 4 databases (n = 74). Independent reviewers selected eligible studies. Numerical and thematic analyses were performed to draft a preliminary framework including a definition. Next, the feasibility of the framework and definition was explored by physical therapy primary health care organization experts. Results: Numerical and thematic data on health care quality and context-specific performance resulted in a health care value framework for physical therapy primary health care organizations—including a definition of health care value, namely “to continuously attain physical therapy primary health care organization-centered outcomes in coherence with patient- and stakeholder-centered outcomes, leveraged by an organization’s capacity for change.” Conclusion: Prior literature mainly discussed health care quality and context-specific performance for primary health care organizations separately. The current study met the need for a value-based framework, feasible for physical therapy primary health care organizations, which are for a large part micro or small. It also solves the omissions of incoherent literature and existing frameworks on continuous health care quality and context-specific performance. Future research is recommended on longitudinal exploration of the HV (health care value) framework.
