Introduction Physical activity levels of children with disabilities are low, as these children and their parents face a wide variety of both personal and environmental barriers. Behavior change techniques support pediatric physical therapists to address these barriers together with parents and children. We developed the What Moves You?! intervention Toolkit (WMY Toolkit) filled with behavioral change tools for use in pediatric physical therapy practice. Objective To evaluate the feasibility of using the WMY Toolkit in daily pediatric physical therapy practice. Methods We conducted a feasibility study with a qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews with pediatric physical therapists (n = 11). After one day of training, the pediatric physical therapists used the WMY Toolkit for a period of 9 weeks, when facilitating physical activity in children with disabilities. We analyzed the transcripts using an inductive thematic analysis followed by a deductive analysis using a feasibility framework. Results For acceptability, pediatric physical therapists found that the toolkit facilitated conversation about physical activity in a creative and playful manner. The working mechanisms identified were in line with the intended working mechanisms during development of the WMY Toolkit, such as focusing on problem solving, self-efficacy and independence. For demand, the pediatric physical therapists mentioned that they were able to use the WMY Toolkit in children with and without disabilities with a broad range of physical activity goals. For implementation, education is important as pediatric physical therapists expressed the need to have sufficient knowledge and to feel confident using the toolkit. For practicality, pediatric physical therapists were positive about the ease of which tools could be adapted for individual children. Some of the design and materials of the toolkit needed attention due to fragility and hygiene. Conclusion The WMY Toolkit is a promising and innovative way to integrate behavior change techniques into pediatric physical therapy practice.
LINK
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
Background: Osteoarthritis is a major public health concern. Despite existing evidence-based treatment options, the health care situation remains unsatisfactory. Digital care options, especially when combined with in-person sessions, seem to be promising. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the needs, preconditions, barriers, and facilitators of blended physical therapy for osteoarthritis. Methods: This Delphi study consisted of interviews, an online questionnaire, and focus groups. Participants were physical therapists, patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis with or without experience in digital care, and stakeholders of the health care system. In the first phase, interviews were conducted with patients and physical therapists. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research. The interviews focused on experiences with digital and blended care. Furthermore, needs, facilitators, and barriers were discussed. In the second phase, an online questionnaire and focus groups served the process to confirm the needs and collect preconditions. The online questionnaire contained statements drawn by the results of the interviews. Patients and physical therapists were invited to complete the questionnaire and participate in one of the three focus groups including (1) patients; (2) physical therapists; and (3) a patient, a physical therapist, and stakeholders from the health care system. The focus groups were used to determine concordance with the results of the interviews and the online questionnaire. Results: Nine physical therapists, seven patients, and six stakeholders confirmed that an increase of acceptance of the digital care part by physical therapists and patients is crucial. One of the most frequently mentioned facilitators was conducting regular in-person sessions. Physical therapists and patients concluded that blended physical therapy must be tailored to the patients' needs. Participants of the last focus group stated that the reimbursement of blended physical therapy needs to be clarified. Conclusions: Most importantly, it is necessary to strengthen the acceptance of patients and physical therapists toward digital care. Overall, fo
LINK
