Background: In implementation science, vast gaps exist between theoretical and practical knowledge. These gaps prevail in the process of getting from problem analysis to selecting implementation strategies while engaging stakeholders including care users. Objective: To describe a process of how to get from problem analysis to strategy selection, how to engage stakeholders, and to provide insights into stakeholders’ experiences. Design: A qualitative descriptive design. Setting and participants: The setting was a care organization providing long-term care to people with acquired brain injuries who are communication vulnerable. Fourteen stakeholders (care users, professionals and researchers) participated. Data were collected by a document review, five interviews and one focus group. Inductive content analysis and deductive framework analysis were applied. Intervention: Stakeholder engagement. Main outcome measures: A three-step process model and stakeholders experiences. Results and conclusion: We formulated a three-step process: (a) reaching consensus and prioritizing barriers; (b) categorizing the prioritized barriers and idealization; and (c) composing strategies. Two subthemes continuously played a role in how stakeholders were engaged during the process: communication supportive strategies and continuous contact. The experiences of stakeholder participation resulted in the following themes: stakeholders and their roles, use of co-creation methods and communication supportive strategies, building relationships, stimulus of stakeholders to engage, sharing power, empowerment of stakeholders, feeling a shared responsibility and learning from one another. We conclude that the inclusion of communicationvulnerable care users is possible if meetings are prepared, communication-friendly presentations and reports are used, and relationship building is prioritized.
Background: The prevalence of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) in people with Mild IntellectualDisability and Borderline Intellectual Functioning (MID-BIF) is high and evidence-basedtreatment programs are scarce. The present study describes the development of a personalised SUD treatment for people with MID-BIF.Method: The personalised SUD treatment is developed according to the steps of the InterventionMapping approach, based on literature review, theoretical intervention methods, clinicalexperience and consultation with experts in the field of addiction and intellectual disability care.Results: We developed a treatment manual called Take it Personal!+. Take it Personal!+ aims toreduce substance use, is based on motivational interviewing and cognitive behavior therapyand personalised based on the client’s personality profile. Furthermore, an mHealth application supports the treatment sessions.Conclusion: Take it Personal!+ is the first personalised SUD treatment for individuals with MID-BIF.Future research should test the effectiveness of Take it Personal!+ in reducing SU.
Abstract: Background: Hip fracture in older patients often lead to permanent disabilities and can result in mortality. Objective: To identify distinct disability trajectories from admission to one-year post-discharge in acutely hospitalized older patients after hip fracture. Design: Prospective cohort study, with assessments at admission, three-months and one-year post-discharge. Setting and participants: Patients ≥ 65 years admitted to a 1024-bed tertiary teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Methods: Disability was the primary outcome and measured with the modified Katz ADL-index score. A secondary outcome was mortality. Latent class growth analysis was performed to detect distinct disability trajectories from admission and Cox regression was used to analyze the effect of the deceased patients to one-year after discharge. Results: The mean (SD) age of the 267 patients was 84.0 (6.9) years. We identified 3 disability trajectories based on the Katz ADL-index score from admission to one-year post-discharge: ‘mild’- (n=54 (20.2%)), ‘moderate’- (n=110 (41.2%)) and ‘severe’ disability (n=103 (38.6%)). Patients in all three trajectories showed an increase of disabilities at three months, in relation to baseline and 80% did not return to baseline one-year post-discharge. Seventy-three patients (27.3%) deceased within one-year post-discharge, particularly in the ‘moderate’- (n=22 (8.2%)) and ‘severe’ disability trajectory (n=47 (17.6%)). Conclusions: Three disability trajectories were identified from hospital admission until one-year follow-up in acutely hospitalized older patients after hip fracture. Most patients had substantial functional decline and 27% of the patient’s deceased one-year post-discharge, mainly patients in the ‘moderate’- ‘and severe’ disability trajectories.
