Background: A significant part of neurological rehabilitation focuses on facilitating the learning of motor skills. Training can adopt either (more) explicit or (more) implicit forms of motor learning. Gait is one of the most practiced motor skills within rehabilitation in people after stroke because it is an important criterion for discharge and requirement for functioning at home. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the design of a randomized controlled study assessing the effects of implicit motor learning compared with the explicit motor learning in gait rehabilitation of people suffering from stroke. Methods: The study adopts a randomized, controlled, single-blinded study design. People after stroke will be eligible for participation when they are in the chronic stage of recovery (>6 months after stroke), would like to improve walking performance, have a slow walking speed (<1 m/s), can communicate in Dutch, and complete a 3-stage command. People will be excluded if they cannot walk a minimum of 10 m or have other additional impairments that (severely) influence gait. Participants will receive 9 gait-training sessions over a 3-week period and will be randomly allocated to an implicit or explicit group. Therapists are aware of the intervention they provide, and the assessors are blind to the intervention participants receive. Outcome will be assessed at baseline (T0), directly after the intervention (T1), and after 1 month (T2). The primary outcome parameter is walking velocity. Walking performance will be assessed with the 10-meter walking test, Dynamic Gait Index, and while performing a secondary task (dual task). Self-reported measures are the Movement Specific Reinvestment Scale, verbal protocol, Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale, and the Global Perceived Effect scale. A process evaluation will take place to identify how the therapy was perceived and identify factors that may have influenced the effectiveness of the intervention. Repeated measures analyses will be conducted to determine significant and clinical relevant differences between groups and over time. Results: Data collection is currently ongoing and results are expected in 2019. Conclusions: The relevance of the study as well as the advantages and disadvantages of several aspects of the chosen design are discussed, for example, the personalized approach and choice of measurements.
Purpose: Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment often leads to physical and psychosocial impairments. Rehabilitation can overcome these limitations and improve quality of life. The aim of this study is to obtain an overview of rehabilitation care for HNC, and to investigate factors influencing rehabilitation provision, in Dutch HNC centers, and to some extent compare it to other countries. Methods: An online survey, covering five themes: organizational structure; rehabilitation interventions; financing; barriers and facilitators; satisfaction and future improvements, among HNC healthcare- and financial professionals of Dutch HNC centers. Results: Most centers (86%) applied some type of rehabilitation care, with variations in organizational structure. A speech language therapist, physiotherapist and dietitian were available in all centers, but other rehabilitation healthcare professionals in less than 60%. Facilitators for providing rehabilitation services included availability of a contact person, and positive attitude, motivation, and expertise of healthcare professionals. Barriers were lack of reimbursement, and patient related barriers including comorbidity, travel (time), low health literacy, limited financial capacity, and poor motivation. Conclusion: Although all HNC centers included offer rehabilitation services, there is substantial practice variation, both nationally and internationally. Factors influencing rehabilitation are related to the motivation and expertise of the treatment team, but also to reimbursement aspects and patient related factors. More research is needed to investigate the extent to which practice variation impacts individual patient outcomes and how to integrate HNC rehabilitation into routine clinical pathways.
MULTIFILE
Background: Both the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and daily life gait quality and quantity obtained from wearable sensors are used to measure functional status in older adults. It is generally assumed that they are interrelated and exchangeable, but this has not yet been established. Interchangeability of these measures would pave the way for remote monitoring of functional status.Research Question: Are the SPPB and daily life gait quality and quantity measures correlated in community-dwelling older adults?Methods: The SPPB and gait quality and quantity data of 229 community-dwelling adults of 65 years or older were collected. The SPPB is a combined score of the Three Stage Balance test, Four Meter Walk test, and Five Times Sit to Stand test and ranges from 0 to 12. Participants wore a tri-axial inertial sensor for one week to assess gait quality (e.g. gait stability and smoothness) and quantity (e.g. number of strides). Correlation coefficients between SPPB scores and gait quality and quantity measures were assessed using Spearman's correlation.Results: The median age of the study population was 76.2 years (IQR 72.6-81.0), and 76 % were women (n=175). The median SPPB score was 10 (IQR 8-11). Spearman's correlation coefficients between the SPPB and gait quality and quantity measures were all below 0.3.Significance: A possible explanation for the observed weak correlations is that the SPPB reflects one's maximal capacity, while gait quality and quantity reflect the submaximal performance in daily life. The SPPB and gait quality and quantity seem therefore distinct constructs with complementary value, rather than interchangeable. A more comprehensive understanding of functional status might be achieved by combining the SPPB assessment of standardized activities with the evaluation of inertial sensor measurements obtained during daily life activities.
Er is momenteel een enorme groei op het gebied van consumentenproducten om activiteiten en bewegingen te meten; zowel voor de fitnessindustrie (bv. Fitbit, Jawbone) als in de gaming wereld (bv Kinect, Wii). Bedrijven op het gebied van zorgtechnologie vragen zich af of zij producten en diensten kunnen ontwikkelen op basis van deze technologie. In dit project richten we ons specifiek op de vraag van de bedrijven of met deze producten het valrisico van ouderen kan worden ingeschat. De incidentele metingen in een klinische omgeving kunnen dan worden vervangen door continue metingen in het dagelijks leven. Het onderzoek dat wordt uitgevoerd betreft het bepalen van de nauwkeurigheid, robuustheid en acceptatie van technologie om in realistische omgevingen (hier: woonomgeving en ziekenhuisom-geving) de bewegingskenmerken van ouderen te meten. Het onderzoek wordt ingericht rond de onderzoeksvraag: Hoe kunnen technologieën voor bewegingsregistratie die zich hebben bewezen in een labsetting worden ingezet in de woonomgeving en in het ziekenhuis, ten behoeve van het inschatten van val-risico bij ouderen? Het onderzoek zal worden uitgevoerd in twee parallel lopende cases: valrisico meten in de woon-omgeving en valrisico meten in het ziekenhuis. In beide gevallen wordt een living lab aanpak ge-volgd: de technologische oplossingen van de MKB worden op iteratieve wijze, in de praktijk , be-studeerd en verder ontwikkeld. Ook de inbedding van de technologie in het zorgproces wordt in het onderzoek meegenomen. De kennis die wordt opgedaan zal worden gebruikt door de participerende MKB in nieuwe pro-ducten en diensten. Het onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd door een multidisciplinair team bestaande uit de Hogeschool van Amsterdam (Domein Digitale Media en Creatieve Industrie en Domein Gezond-heid), de Vrije Universiteit (Bewegingswetenschappen), het AMC (Geriatrie), zorgaanbieders Cor-daan en Amsta en de participerende MKB. De resultaten zullen worden gepresenteerd op twee publieke seminars, in vakbladen en op we-tenschappelijke conferenties.
