OBJECTIVES: To explore the perceived working mechanisms of psychosomatic therapy according to patients with persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) and their psychosomatic therapists.DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured face-to-face interviews and focus groups. All interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed, by two researchers independently, based on the thematic analysis.SETTING: Alongside a randomised controlled trial to establish the (cost-)effectiveness of psychosomatic therapy in patients with PSS in primary care, we conducted a process evaluation with a qualitative study. Patients were recruited in general practice in three regions in the Netherlands.PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted with twenty patients with PSS who received psychosomatic therapy and 25 psychosomatic therapists. In addition, two focus groups were conducted with six and seven psychosomatic therapists, respectively.INTERVENTION: Psychosomatic therapy, delivered by specialised exercise and physical therapists, is a multimodal and tailored treatment based on the biopsychosocial model.OUTCOME MEASURES: Experiences, opinions and views from patients' and therapists' perspective on psychosomatic therapy were identified.RESULTS: A total of 37 interviews with patients, 25 interviews and two focus groups with therapists were analysed. Three main themes emerged from the data of the patients: (1) continuous alternation of psychosocial conversations and body-oriented exercises; (2) awareness of body-mind connection and (3) good relationship with therapist. Four main themes emerged from the data of the therapists (1) building rapport; (2) continuously searching for common ground; (3) making patients aware of the interaction between body and mind; and (4) continuous alternation between exploration and treatment.CONCLUSION: According to patients as well as therapists, the continuous alternation of psychosocial conversations and body-oriented exercises to provide awareness of the interaction between body and mind are the perceived working mechanism of psychosomatic therapy. Therapeutic alliance and finding common ground between patient and therapist are prerequisites for the success of psychosomatic therapy.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL7157 (NTR7356).
Phantom limb pain following amputation is highly prevalent as it affects up to 80% of amputees. Many amputees suffer from phantom limb pain for many years and experience major limitations in daily routines and quality of life. Conventional pharmacological interventions often have negative side-effects and evidence regarding their long-term efficacy is low. Central malplasticity such as the invasion of areas neighbouring the cortical representation of the amputated limb contributes to the occurrence and maintenance of phantom limb pain. In this context, alternative, non-pharmacological interventions such as mirror therapy that are thought to target these central mechanisms have gained increasing attention in the treatment of phantom limb pain. However, a standardized evidence-based treatment protocol for mirror therapy in patients with phantom limb pain is lacking, and evidence for its effectiveness is still low. Furthermore, given the chronic nature of phantom limb pain and suggested central malplasticity, published studies proposed that patients should self-deliver mirror therapy over several weeks to months to achieve sustainable effects. To achieve this training intensity, patients need to perform self-delivered exercises on a regular basis, which could be facilitated though the use of information and communication technology such as telerehabilitation. However, little is known about potential benefits of using telerehabilitation in patients with phantom limb pain, and controlled clinical trials investigating effects are lacking. The present thesis presents the findings from the ‘PAtient Centered Telerehabilitation’ (PACT) project, which was conducted in three consecutive phases: 1) creating a theoretical foundation; 2) modelling the intervention; and 3) evaluating the intervention in clinical practice. The objectives formulated for the three phases of the PACT project were: 1) to conduct a systematic review of the literature regarding important clinical aspects of mirror therapy. It focused on the evidence of applying mirror therapy in patients with stroke, complex regional pain syndrome and phantom limb pain. 2) to design and develop a clinical framework and a user-centred telerehabilitation for mirror therapy in patients with phantom limb pain following lower limb amputation. 3) to evaluate the effects of the clinical framework for mirror therapy and the additional effects of the teletreatment in patients with phantom limb pain. It also investigated whether the interventions were delivered by patients and therapists as intended.
Background: Integrating physical therapy sessions and an online application (e-Exercise) might support people with hip osteoarthritis (OA), knee OA, or both (hip/knee OA) in taking an active role in the management of their chronic condition and may reduce the number of physical therapy sessions.Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the short- and long-term effectiveness of e-Exercise compared to usual physical therapy in people with hip/knee OA.Design: The design was a prospective, single-blind, multicenter, superiority, cluster- randomized controlled trial.Setting: The setting included 143 primary care physical therapist practices.Participants: The participants were 208 people who had hip/knee OA and were 40 to 80 years of age.Intervention: e-Exercise is a 3-month intervention in which about 5 face-to-face physical therapy sessions were integrated with an online application consisting of graded activity, exercise, and information modules. Usual physical therapy was conducted according to the Dutch physical therapy guidelines on hip and knee OA.Measurements: Primary outcomes, measured at baseline after 3 and 12 months, were physical functioning and free-living physical activity. Secondary outcome measures were pain, tiredness, quality of life, self-efficacy, and the number of physical therapy sessions.Results: The e-Exercise group (n = 109) received, on average, 5 face-to-face sessions; the usual physical therapy group (n = 99) received 12. No significant differences in primary outcomes between the e-Exercise group and the usual physical therapy group were found. Within-group analyses for both groups showed a significant improvement in physical functioning. After 3 months, participants in the e-Exercise group reported an increase in physical activity; however, no objectively measured differences in physical activity were found. With respect to secondary outcomes, after 12 months, sedentary behavior significantly increased in the e-Exercise group compared with the usual physical therapy group. In both groups, there were significant improvements for pain, tiredness, quality of life, and self-efficacy.Limitations: The response rate at 12 months was 65%.Conclusions: The blended intervention, e-Exercise, was not more effective than usual physical therapy in people with hip/knee OA.
