PURPOSE: To describe the current status of the nationwide implementation process of a sports and physical activity stimulation programme to gain insight into how sports and physical activity were integrated into Dutch rehabilitation care.METHODS: The current implementation status of a sports and physical activity stimulation programme in 12 rehabilitation centres and 5 hospitals with a rehabilitation department was described by scoring fidelity and satisfaction. Seventy-one rehabilitation professionals filled out a questionnaire on how sports and physical activity, including stimulation activities, were implemented into rehabilitation care. Total fidelity scores (in %) were calculated for each organization. Professionals' satisfaction was rated on a scale from 1 to 10.RESULTS: In most organizations sports and physical activity were to some extent integrated during and after rehabilitation (fidelity scores: median = 54%, IQR = 23%). Physical activity stimulation was not always embedded as standard component of a rehabilitation treatment. Professionals' satisfaction rated a median value of 8.0 (IQR = 0.0) indicating high satisfaction rates.CONCLUSIONS: The fidelity outcome showed that activities to stimulate sports and physical activity during and after rehabilitation were integrated into rehabilitation care, but not always delivered as standardized component. These findings have emphasized the importance to focus on integrating these activities into routines of organizations. Implications for Rehabilitation Components of an evidence-based programme to stimulate sports and physical activity during and after rehabilitation can be used to measure the current status of the integration of sports and physical activity in rehabilitation care in a structural and effective way. The method described in the current study can be used to compare the content of the rehabilitation care regarding the integration of sports and physical activity among organizations both on a national and international level. Sports and physical activity are seen as important ingredients for successful rehabilitation care in The Netherlands.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Objective: To describe changes in the health service delivery process experienced by professionals, patients and informal caregivers during implementation of a national programme to improve quality of care of geriatric rehabilitation by improving integration of health service delivery processes. Study setting: Sixteen skilled nursing facilities. Study design: Prospective study, comparing three consecutive cohorts. Data collection: Professionals (elderly care physicians, physiotherapists and nursing staff) rated four domains of health service delivery at admission and at discharge of 1075 patients. In addition, these patients [median age 79 (Interquartile range 71–85) years, 63% females] and their informal caregivers rated their experiences on these domains 4 weeks after discharge. Principal findings: During the three consecutive cohorts, professionals reported improvement on the domain team cooperation, including assessment for intensive treatment and information transfer among professionals. Fewer improvements were reported within the domains alignment with patients’ needs, care coordination and care quality. Between the cohorts, according to patients (n = 521) and informal caregivers (n = 319) there were no changes in the four domains of health service delivery. Conclusion: This national programme resulted in small improvements in team cooperation as reported by the professionals. No effects were found on patients’ and informal caregivers’ perceptions of health service delivery.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Research suggests that cancer rehabilitation reduces fatigue in survivors of cancer. To date, it is unclear what type of rehabilitation is most beneficial.OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial compared the effect on cancer-related fatigue of physical training combined with cognitive behavioral therapy with physical training alone and with no intervention.DESIGN: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, 147 survivors of cancer were randomly assigned to a group that received physical training combined with cognitive-behavioral therapy (PT+CBT group, n=76) or to a group that received physical training alone (PT group, n=71). In addition, a nonintervention control group (WLC group) consisting of 62 survivors of cancer who were on the waiting lists of rehabilitation centers elsewhere was included.SETTING: The study was conducted at 4 rehabilitation centers in the Netherlands.PATIENTS: All patients were survivors of cancer.INTERVENTION: Physical training consisting of 2 hours of individual training and group sports took place twice weekly, and cognitive-behavioral therapy took place once weekly for 2 hours.MEASUREMENTS: Fatigue was assessed with the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory before and immediately after intervention (12 weeks after enrollment). The WLC group completed questionnaires at the same time points.RESULTS: Baseline fatigue did not differ significantly among the 3 groups. Over time, levels of fatigue significantly decreased in all domains in all groups, except in mental fatigue in the WLC group. Analyses of variance of postintervention fatigue showed statistically significant group effects on general fatigue, on physical and mental fatigue, and on reduced activation but not on reduced motivation. Compared with the WLC group, the PT group reported significantly greater decline in 4 domains of fatigue, whereas the PT+CBT group reported significantly greater decline in physical fatigue only. No significant differences in decline in fatigue were found between the PT+CBT and PT groups.CONCLUSIONS: Physical training combined with cognitive-behavioral therapy and physical training alone had significant and beneficial effects on fatigue compared with no intervention. Physical training was equally effective as or more effective than physical training combined with cognitive-behavioral therapy in reducing cancer-related fatigue, suggesting that cognitive-behavioral therapy did not have additional beneficial effects beyond the benefits of physical training.
DOCUMENT
