Purpose: To systematically review literature on nutritional intake, nutritional status and nutritional interventions, and to study their association with short- and long-term clinical outcomes in people with a major dysvascular lower limb amputation. Methods: PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were searched. Studies were included if nutritional intake, nutritional status, or nutritional interventions in people with a major dysvascular lower limb amputation were analyzed. Results: Of the 3038 unique papers identified, 30 studies were included. Methodological quality was moderate (1 study) or weak (29 studies). Limited information was available on nutritional intake (2 studies) and nutritional interventions (1 study). Nutritional intake and nutritional status were assessed by diverse methods. The percentage of people with a poor nutritional status ranged from 1% to 100%. In some studies, measures of poor nutritional status were associated with adverse short- and long-term clinical outcomes. Conclusions: The percentage of people with a poor nutritional status is inconclusive in the major dysvascular lower limb amputation population, because of the heterogeneity of the assessment methods used. Some included studies reported a negative association between poor nutritional status and clinical outcomes. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, because of the limited quality of the studies available. Studies high in methodological quality and high in hierarchy of evidence are needed.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION The proportion of people with a poor nutritional status in the major dysvascular lower limb amputation population is inconclusive. Poor nutritional status seems to affect clinical outcomes negatively. More uniformity in assessment of malnutrition in the major dysvascular lower limb amputation population is needed.
DOCUMENT
This study is part of the WHeelchair ExercisE and Lifestyle Study (WHEELS) project and aims to identify determinants of dietary behaviour in wheelchair users with spinal cord injury or lower limb amputation, from the perspectives of both wheelchair users and rehabilitation professionals. Results of focus groups with wheelchair users (n = 25) and rehabilitation professionals (n = 11) are presented using an integrated International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and Attitude, Social influence and self-Efficacy model as theoretical framework.
LINK
Objective: Effective healthcare innovations are often not adopted and implemented. An implementation strategy based on facilitators and barriers for use as perceived by healthcare professionals could increase adoption rates. This study therefore aimed to identify the most relevant facilitators and barriers for use of an innovative breast cancer aftercare decision aid (PtDA) in healthcare practice. Methods: Facilitators and barriers (related to the PtDA, adopter and healthcare organisation) were assessed among breast cancer aftercare health professionals (n = 81), using the MIDI questionnaire. For each category, a backward regression analysis was performed (dependent = intention to adopt). All significant factors were then added to a final regression analysis to identify to most relevant determinants of PtDA adoption. Results: Expecting higher compatibility with daily practice and clinical guidelines, more positive outcomes of use, higher perceived relevance for the patient and increased self-efficacy were significantly associated with a higher intention to adopt. Self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance remained significant in the final model. Conclusions: Low perceived self-efficacy and patient relevance are the most important barriers for health professions to adopt a breast cancer aftercare PtDA. Practice implications: To target self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance, the implementation strategy could apply health professional peer champions.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To compare the effects of traditional mirror therapy (MT), a patient-centred teletreatment (PACT) and sensomotor exercises without a mirror on phantom limb pain (PLP). Design: Three-arm multicentre randomized controlled trial. Setting: Rehabilitation centres, hospital and private practices. Subjects: Adult patients with unilateral lower limb amputation and average PLP intensity of at least 3 on the 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Interventions: Subjects randomly received either four weeks of traditional MT followed by a teletreatment using augmented reality MT, traditional MT followed by self-delivered MT or sensomotor exercises of the intact limb without a mirror followed by self-delivered exercises. Main measures: Intensity, frequency and duration of PLP and patient-reported outcomes assessing limitations in daily life at baseline, 4 weeks, 10 weeks and 6 months. Results: In total, 75 patients received traditional MT (n = 25), teletreatment (n = 26) or sensomotor exercises (n = 24). Mean (SD) age was 61.1 (14.2) years and mean (SD) pain intensity was 5.7 (2.1) on the NRS. Effects of MT at four weeks on PLP were not significant. MT significantly reduced the duration of PLP at six months compared to the teletreatment (P = 0.050) and control group (P = 0.019). Subgroup analyses suggested significant effects on PLP in women, patients with telescoping and patients with a motor component in PLP. The teletreatment had no additional effects compared to self-delivered MT at 10 weeks and 6 months. Conclusion: Traditional MT over four weeks was not more effective than sensomotor exercises without a mirror in reducing PLP, although significant effects were suggested in some subgroups.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To evaluate the delivery, acceptance and experiences regarding a traditional and teletreatment approach to mirror therapy as delivered in a randomized controlled trial. Design: Mixed methods, prospective study. Setting: Rehabilitation centres, hospital and private practices. Subjects: Adult patients with phantom pain following lower limb amputation and their treating physical and occupational therapists. Interventions: All patients received 4 weeks of traditional mirror therapy (n=51), followed by 6 weeks of teletreatment (n=26) or 6 weeks of self-delivered mirror therapy (n=25). Main measures: Patient files, therapist logs, log files teletreatment, acceptance questionnaire and interviews with patients and their therapists. Results: In all, 51 patients and 10 therapists participated in the process evaluation. Only 16 patients (31%) received traditional mirror therapy according to the clinical framework during the first 4 weeks. Between weeks 5 and 10, the teletreatment was used by 14 patients (56%) with sufficient dose. Teletreatment usage decreased from a median number of 31 (weeks 5–10) to 19 sessions (weeks 11–24). Satisfactory teletreatment user acceptance rates were found with patients demonstrating higher scores (e.g. regarding the usefulness to control pain) than therapists. Potential barriers for implementation of the teletreatment perceived by patients and therapists were related to insufficient training and support as well as the frequency of technical problems. Conclusion: Traditional mirror therapy and the teletreatment were not delivered as intended in the majority of patients. Implementation of the teletreatment in daily routines was challenging, and more research is needed to evaluate user characteristics that influence adherence and how technology features can be optimized to develop tailored implementation strategies.
DOCUMENT
The WHEELS app was developed using the intervention mapping framework. Intervention goals were determined based on a needs assessment, after which behavior change strategies were selected to achieve these goals. These were applied in an app that was pretested on ease of use and satisfaction, followed by minor adjustments. Subsequently, a 12-week pre-post pilot study was performed to explore usability, feasibility, and effectiveness of the app. Participants received either a remote-guided or stand-alone intervention. Responses to semistructured interviews were analyzed using content analysis, and questionnaires (System Usability Score [SUS], and Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease) were administered to investigate usability and feasibility. Effectiveness was determined by measuring outcomes on physical activity, nutrition, sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), body composition, and other secondary outcomes pre and post intervention, and by calculating effect sizes (Hedges g).
LINK
