Background: A Dutch nationwide prospective cohort study was initiated to investigate recovery trajectories of people recovering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and costs of treatment by primary care allied health professionals. Objectives: The study described recovery trajectories over a period of 12 months and associated baseline characteristics of participants recovering from COVID-19 who visited a primary care allied health professional. It also aimed to provide insight into the associated healthcare and societal costs. Methods: Participants completed participant-reported standardized outcomes on participation, health-related quality of life, fatigue, physical functioning, and costs at baseline (ie, start of the treatment), 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Results: A total of 1451 participants (64 % women, 76 % mild/moderate severity) with a mean (SD) age of 49 (12) years were included. Linear mixed models showed significant and clinically relevant improvements over time in all outcome measures between baseline and 12 months. Between 6 and 12 months, we found significant but not clinically relevant improvements in most outcome measures. Having a worse baseline score was the only baseline factor that was consistently associated with greater improvement over time on that outcome. Total allied healthcare costs (mean €1921; SEM €48) made up about 3% of total societal costs (mean €64,584; SEM €3149) for the average participant in the cohort. Conclusions: The health status of participants recovering from COVID-19 who visited an allied health professional improved significantly over a 12-month follow-up period, but nearly the improvement occurred between baseline and 6 months. Most participants still reported severe impairments in their daily lives, and generated substantial societal costs. These issues, combined with the fact that baseline characteristics explained little of the variance in recovery over time, underscore the importance of continued attention for the management of people recovering from COVID-19. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov
The design of healthcare facilities is a complex and dynamic process, which involves many stakeholders each with their own set of needs. In the context of healthcare facilities, this complexity exists at the intersection of technology and society because the very design of these buildings forces us to consider the technology–human interface directly in terms of living-space, ethics and social priorities. In order to grasp this complexity, current healthcare design models need mechanisms to help prioritize the needs of the stakeholders. Assistance in this process can be derived by incorporating elements of technology philosophy into existing design models. In this article, we develop and examine the Inclusive and Integrated Health Facilities Design model (In2Health Design model) and its foundations. This model brings together three existing approaches: (i) the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, (ii) the Model of Integrated Building Design, and (iii) the ontology by Dooyeweerd. The model can be used to analyze the needs of the various stakeholders, in relationship to the required performances of a building as delivered by various building systems. The applicability of the In2Health Design model is illustrated by two case studies concerning (i) the evaluation of the indoor environment for older people with dementia and (ii) the design process of the redevelopment of an existing hospital for psychiatric patients.
Background:Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telerehabilitation (TR) has been expanding to address the challenges and risks of in-person delivery. It is likely that a level of TR delivery will continue after the pandemic because of its advantages, such as reducing geographical barriers to service. Many pandemic-related TR initiatives were put in place quickly. Therefore, we have little understanding of current TR delivery, barriers and facilitators, and how therapists anticipate integrating TR into current practice. Knowing this information will allow the incorporation of competencies specifically related to the use and provision of TR into professional profiles and entry-to-practice education, thereby promoting high-quality TR care.Objective:This study aimed to obtain a descriptive overview of current TR practice among rehabilitation therapists in Canada and the Netherlands and identify perceived barriers to and facilitators of practice.Methods:A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted with occupational, physical, and respiratory therapists and dietitians in Canada (in French and English) and the Netherlands (in Dutch and English) between November 2021 and March 2022. Recruitment was conducted through advertisements on social media platforms and email invitations facilitated by regulatory and professional bodies. The survey included demographic and practice setting information; whether respondents delivered TR, and if so, components of delivery; confidence and satisfaction ratings with delivery; and barriers to and facilitators of use. TR satisfaction and uptake were measured using the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire and modified Technology Acceptance Model. Data were first summarized descriptively, and then, comparisons were conducted between professions.Results:Overall, 723 survey responses were received, mostly from Canada (n=666, 92.1%) and occupational therapists (n=434, 60%). Only 28.1% (203/723) reported receiving specific training in TR, with 1.2% (9/723) indicating that it was part of their professional education. Approximately 19.5% (139/712) reported not using TR at all, whereas most participants (366/712, 51.4%) had been using this approach for 1 to 2 years. Services delivered were primarily teleconsultation and teletreatment with individuals. Respondents offering TR were moderately satisfied with their service delivery and found it to be effective; 90.1% (498/553) indicated that they were likely to continue offering TR after the pandemic. Technology access, confidence, and setup were rated the highest as facilitators, whereas technology issues and the clinical need for physical contact were the most common barriers.Conclusions:Professional practice and experience with TR were similar in both countries, suggesting the potential for common strategic approaches. The high prevalence of current practice and strong indicators of TR uptake suggest that therapists are likely to continue TR delivery after the pandemic; however, most therapists (461/712, 64.7%) felt ill prepared for practice, and the need to target TR competencies during professional and postprofessional education is critical. Future studies should explore best practice for preparatory and continuing education.
