Background: Postoperative rehabilitation after primary total hip arthroplasty (p-THA) differs between the Netherlands and Germany. Aim is to compare clinical effectiveness and to get a first impression of cost effectiveness of Dutch versus German usual care after p-THA. Methods: A transnational prospective controlled observational trial. Clinical effectiveness was assessed with self-reported questionnaires and functional tests. Measurements were taken preoperatively and 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively. For cost effectiveness, long-term economic aspects were assessed from a societal perspective. Results: 124 working-age patients finished the measurements. German usual care leads to a significantly larger proportion (65.6% versus 47.5%) of satisfied patients 12 weeks postoperatively and significantly better self-reported function and Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST) results. German usual care is generally 45% more expensive than Dutch usual care, and 20% more expensive for working-age patients. A scenario analysis assumed that German patients work the same number of hours as the Dutch, and that productivity costs are the same. This analysis revealed German care is still more expensive but the difference decreased to 8%. Conclusions: German rehabilitation is clinically advantageous yet more expensive, although comparisons are less straightforward as the socioeconomic context differs between the two countries. Trial registration: The study is registered in the German Registry of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011345, 18/11/2016).
DOCUMENT
Background: Neck and shoulder complaints are common in primary care physiotherapy. These patients experience pain and disability, resulting in high societal costs due to, for example, healthcare use and work absence. Content and intensity of physiotherapy care can be matched to a patient’s risk of persistent disabling pain. Mode of care delivery can be matched to the patient’s suitability for blended care (integrating eHealth with physiotherapy sessions). It is hypothesized that combining these two approaches to stratified care (referred to from this point as Stratified Blended Approach) will improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints compared to usual physiotherapy. Methods: This paper presents the protocol of a multicenter, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial. A total of 92 physiotherapists will be recruited from Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices. Physiotherapy practices will be randomized to the Stratified Blended Approach arm or usual physiotherapy arm by a computer-generated random sequence table using SPSS (1:1 allocation). Number of physiotherapists (1 or > 1) will be used as a stratification variable. A total of 238 adults consulting with neck and/or shoulder complaints will be recruited to the trial by the physiotherapy practices. In the Stratified Blended Approach arm, physiotherapists will match I) the content and intensity of physiotherapy care to the patient’s risk of persistent disabling pain, categorized as low, medium or high (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and II) the mode of care delivery to the patient’s suitability and willingness to receive blended care. The control arm will receive physiotherapy as usual. Neither physiotherapists nor patients in the control arm will be informed about the Stratified Blended Approach arm. The primary outcome is region-specific pain and disability (combined score of Shoulder Pain and Disability Index & Neck Pain and Disability Scale) over 9 months. Effectiveness will be compared using linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and healthcare perspective. Discussion: The trial will be the first to provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Stratified Blended Approach compared with usual physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVES: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by its heterogeneity, with large differences in clinical characteristics between patients. Therefore, a stratified approach to exercise therapy, whereby patients are allocated to homogeneous subgroups and receive a stratified, subgroup-specific intervention, can be expected to optimize current clinical effects. Recently, we developed and pilot tested a model of stratified exercise therapy based on clinically relevant subgroups of knee OA patients that we previously identified. Based on the promising results, it is timely to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of stratified exercise therapy compared with usual, "nonstratified" exercise therapy.METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including economic and process evaluation, comparing stratified exercise therapy with usual care by physical therapists (PTs) in primary care, in a total of 408 patients with clinically diagnosed knee OA. Eligible physical therapy practices are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to provide the experimental (in 204 patients) or control intervention (in 204 patients), respectively. The experimental intervention is a model of stratified exercise therapy consisting of (a) a stratification algorithm that allocates patients to a "high muscle strength subgroup," "low muscle strength subgroup," or "obesity subgroup" and (b) subgroup-specific, protocolized exercise therapy (with an additional dietary intervention from a dietician for the obesity subgroup only). The control intervention will be usual best practice by PTs (i.e., nonstratified exercise therapy). Our primary outcome measures are knee pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscale daily living). Measurements will be performed at baseline, 3-month (primary endpoint), 6-month (questionnaires only), and 12-month follow-up, with an additional cost questionnaire at 9 months. Intention-to-treat, multilevel, regression analysis comparing stratified versus usual care will be performed.CONCLUSION: This study will demonstrate whether stratified care provided by primary care PTs is effective and cost-effective compared with usual best practice from PTs.
DOCUMENT
Everyone has the right to participate in society to the best of their ability. This right also applies to people with a visual impairment, in combination with a severe or profound intellectual and possibly motor disability (VISPIMD). However, due to their limitations, for their participation these people are often highly dependent on those around them, such as family members andhealthcare professionals. They determine how people with VISPIMD participate and to what extent. To optimize this support, they must have a good understanding of what people with disabilities can still do with their remaining vision.It is currently difficult to gain insight into the visual abilities of people with disabilities, especially those with VISPIMD. As a professional said, "Everything we can think of or develop to assess the functional vision of this vulnerable group will help improve our understanding and thus our ability to support them. Now, we are more or less guessing about what they can see.Moreover, what little we know about their vision is hard to communicate to other professionals”. Therefore, there is a need for methods that can provide insight into the functional vision of people with VISPIMD, in order to predict their options in daily life situations. This is crucial knowledge to ensure that these people can participate in society to their fullest extent.What makes it so difficult to get this insight at the moment? Visual impairments can be caused by a range of eye or brain disorders and can manifest in various ways. While we understand fairly well how low vision affects a person's abilities on relatively simple visual tasks, it is much more difficult to predict this in more complex dynamic everyday situations such asfinding your way or moving around during daily activities. This is because, among other things, conventional ophthalmic tests provide little information about what people can do with their remaining vision in everyday life (i.e., their functional vision).An additional problem in assessing vision in people with intellectual disabilities is that many conventional tests are difficult to perform or are too fatiguing, resulting in either no or the wrong information. In addition to their visual impairment, there is also a very serious intellectual disability (possibly combined with a motor impairment), which makes it even more complex to assesstheir functional vision. Due to the interplay between their visual, intellectual, and motor disabilities, it is almost impossible to determine whether persons are unable to perform an activity because they do not see it, do not notice it, do not understand it, cannot communicate about it, or are not able to move their head towards the stimulus due to motor disabilities.Although an expert professional can make a reasonable estimate of the functional possibilities through long-term and careful observation, the time and correct measurement data are usually lacking to find out the required information. So far, it is insufficiently clear what people with VZEVMB provoke to see and what they see exactly.Our goal with this project is to improve the understanding of the visual capabilities of people with VISPIMD. This then makes it possible to also improve the support for participation of the target group. We want to achieve this goal by developing and, in pilot form, testing a new combination of measurement and analysis methods - primarily based on eye movement registration -to determine the functional vision of people with VISPIMD. Our goal is to systematically determine what someone is responding to (“what”), where it may be (“where”), and how much time that response will take (“when”). When developing methods, we take the possibilities and preferences of the person in question as a starting point in relation to the technological possibilities.Because existing technological methods were originally developed for a different purpose, this partly requires adaptation to the possibilities of the target group.The concrete end product of our pilot will be a manual with an overview of available technological methods (as well as the methods themselves) for assessing functional vision, linked to the specific characteristics of the target group in the cognitive, motor area: 'Given that a client has this (estimated) combination of limitations (cognitive, motor and attention, time in whichsomeone can concentrate), the order of assessments is as follows:' followed by a description of the methods. We will also report on our findings in a workshop for professionals, a Dutch-language article and at least two scientific articles. This project is executed in the line: “I am seen; with all my strengths and limitations”. During the project, we closely collaborate with relevant stakeholders, i.e. the professionals with specific expertise working with the target group, family members of the persons with VISPIMD, and persons experiencing a visual impairment (‘experience experts’).
The Dutch main water systems face pressing environmental, economic and societal challenges due to climatic changes and increased human pressure. There is a growing awareness that nature-based solutions (NBS) provide cost-effective solutions that simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help building resilience. In spite of being carefully designed and tested, many projects tend to fail along the way or never get implemented in the first place, wasting resources and undermining trust and confidence of practitioners in NBS. Why do so many projects lose momentum even after a proof of concept is delivered? Usually, failure can be attributed to a combination of eroding political will, societal opposition and economic uncertainties. While ecological and geological processes are often well understood, there is almost no understanding around societal and economic processes related to NBS. Therefore, there is an urgent need to carefully evaluate the societal, economic, and ecological impacts and to identify design principles fostering societal support and economic viability of NBS. We address these critical knowledge gaps in this research proposal, using the largest river restoration project of the Netherlands, the Border Meuse (Grensmaas), as a Living Lab. With a transdisciplinary consortium, stakeholders have a key role a recipient and provider of information, where the broader public is involved through citizen science. Our research is scientifically innovative by using mixed methods, combining novel qualitative methods (e.g. continuous participatory narrative inquiry) and quantitative methods (e.g. economic choice experiments to elicit tradeoffs and risk preferences, agent-based modeling). The ultimate aim is to create an integral learning environment (workbench) as a decision support tool for NBS. The workbench gathers data, prepares and verifies data sets, to help stakeholders (companies, government agencies, NGOs) to quantify impacts and visualize tradeoffs of decisions regarding NBS.
