Background:Owing to demographic trends and increasing health care costs, quick discharge with geriatric rehabilitation at home is advised and recommended for older adults. Telerehabilitation has been identified as a promising tool to support rehabilitation at home. However, there is insufficient knowledge about how to implement a validated home telerehabilitation system in other contexts. One of the major challenges for rehabilitation professionals is transitioning to a blended work process in which human coaching is supplemented via digital care.Objective:The study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the factors that influence the implementation of an evidence-based sensor monitoring intervention (SMI) for older adults by analyzing the perspectives of rehabilitation professionals working in 2 different health ecosystems and mapping SMI barriers and facilitators.Methods:We adopted a qualitative study design to conduct 2 focus groups, 1 in person in the Netherlands during winter of 2017 and 1 on the web via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications; owing to the COVID-19 pandemic) in Canada during winter of 2022, to explore rehabilitation providers’ perspectives about implementing SMI. Qualitative data obtained were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants were a group of rehabilitation professionals in the Netherlands who have previously worked with the SMI and a group of rehabilitation professionals in the province of Manitoba (Canada) who have not previously worked with the SMI but who were introduced to the intervention through a 30-minute web-based presentation before the focus group.Results:The participants expressed different characteristics of the telerehabilitation intervention that contributed to making the intervention successful for at-home rehabilitation: focus on future participation goals, technology support provides the rehabilitation professionals with objective and additional insight into the daily functioning of the older adults at home, SMI can be used as a goal-setting tool, and SMI deepens their contact with older adults. The analysis showed facilitators of and barriers to the implementation of the telerehabilitation intervention. These included personal or client-related, therapist-related, and technology-related aspects.Conclusions:Rehabilitation professionals believed that telerehabilitation could be suitable for monitoring and supporting older adults’ rehabilitation at home. To better guide the implementation of telerehabilitation in the daily practice of rehabilitation professionals, the following steps are needed: ensuring that technology is feasible for communities with limited digital health literacy and cognitive impairments, developing instruction tools and guidelines, and training and coaching of rehabilitation professionals.
Background To improve the quality of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) the CR guideline from the Dutch Royal Society for Physiotherapists (KNGF) has been updated. This guideline can be considered an addition to the 2011 Dutch Multidisciplinary CR guideline, as it includes several novel topics. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to formulate conclusions on the efficacy of exercise-based interventions during all CR phases in patients with CHD. Evidence was graded (1–4) according the Dutch evidence-based guideline development (EBRO) criteria. In case of insufficient scientific evidence, recommendations were based on expert opinion. This guideline comprised a structured approach including assessment, treatment and evaluation. Results Recommendations for exercise-based CR were formulated covering the following topics: preoperative physiotherapy, mobilisation during the clinical phase, aerobic exercise, strength training, and relaxation therapy during the outpatient rehabilitation phase, and adoption and monitoring of a physically active lifestyle after outpatient rehabilitation. Conclusions There is strong evidence for the effectiveness of exercise-based CR during all phases of CR. The implementation of this guideline in clinical practice needs further evaluation as well as the maintenance of an active lifestyle after supervised rehabilitation. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tinusjongert/
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a randomized controlled trial and compare the effects on cancer survivors' quality of life in a 12-week group-based multidisciplinary self-management rehabilitation program, combining physical training (twice weekly) and cognitive-behavioral training (once weekly) with those of a 12-week group-based physical training (twice weekly). In addition, both interventions were compared with no intervention.METHODS: Participants (all cancer types, medical treatment completed > or = 3 months ago) were randomly assigned to multidisciplinary rehabilitation (n = 76) or physical training (n = 71). The nonintervention comparison group consisted of 62 patients on a waiting list. Quality of life was measured using the RAND-36. The rehabilitation groups were measured at baseline, after rehabilitation, and 3-month follow-up, and the nonintervention group was measured at baseline and 12 weeks later.RESULTS: The effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation did not outperform those of physical training in role limitations due to emotional problem (primary outcome) or any other domains of quality of life (all p > .05). Compared with no intervention, participants in both rehabilitation groups showed significant and clinically relevant improvements in role limitations due to physical problem (primary outcome; effect size (ES) = 0.66), and in physical functioning (ES = 0.48), vitality (ES = 0.54), and health change (ES = 0.76) (all p < .01).CONCLUSIONS: Adding a cognitive-behavioral training to group-based self-management physical training did not have additional beneficial effects on cancer survivors' quality of life. Compared with the nonintervention group, the group-based self-management rehabilitation improved cancer survivors' quality of life.
