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
E-Exercise is an effective 12-week blended intervention consisting of around five face-to-face physiotherapy sessions and a web-based application for patients with hip/knee osteoarthritis. In order to facilitate effective implementation of e-Exercise, this study aims to identify physiotherapists' experiences and determinants related to the usage of e-Exercise. Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed methods design embedded in a randomized controlled trial comparing e-Exercise with usual physiotherapy in patients with hip/knee osteoarthritis. Usage of e-Exercise was based on recruitment rates of 123 physiotherapists allocated to e-Exercise and objective web-based application usage data. Experiences and determinants related to e-Exercise usage were investigated with a questionnaire and clarified with semi-structured interviews. Results: Of the 123 physiotherapists allocated to e-Exercise, 54 recruited more than one eligible patient, of whom 10 physiotherapists continued using e-Exercise after the study period. Physiotherapists had mixed experiences with e-Exercise. Determinants related to intervention usage were appropriateness, added value, time, workload, professional autonomy, environmental factors, and financial consequences. Physiotherapists recommended to improve the ability to tailor e-Exercise to the individual needs of the patient patients' individual needs. Discussion: Determinants related to the usage of e-Exercise provided valuable information for the implementation of e-Exercise on broader scale. Most importantly, the flexibility of e-Exercise needs to be improved. Next, there is a need for education on how to integrate an online program within physiotherapy
Background: We developed an Internet-based physical activity (PA) support program (IPAS), which is embedded in a patient portal. We evaluated the effectiveness and costs of IPAS alone (online only) or IPAS combined with physiotherapist telephone counselling (blended care), compared to a control group. Methods: Breast or prostate cancer survivors, 3–36 months after completing primary treatment, were randomized to 6-months access to online only, blended care, or a control group. At baseline and 6-month post-baseline, minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) were measured by accelerometers. Secondary outcomes were self-reported PA, fatigue, mood, health-related quality of life, attitude toward PA, and costs. (Generalized) linear models were used to compare the outcomes between groups. Results: We recruited 137 survivors (participation rate 11%). We did not observe any significant between-group differences in MVPA or secondary outcomes. Adherence was rather low and satisfaction scores were low to moderate, with better scores for blended care. Costs for both interventions were low. Conclusions: Recruitment to the study was challenging and the interventions were less efficacious than anticipated, which led to lessons learned for future trials. Suggestions for future research are as follows: improved accessibility of the support program, increased frequency of support, and use of activity trackers.
