Current practice regarding risk assessment contemplates the severity and likelihood of risks and employs the use of matrices where these factors are classified and cross-referenced to evaluate risk levels. Depending on the adequacy and reliability of data, the likelihood is estimated with quantitative or qualitative methods; severity is estimated according to experience from past events. This standard technique for assessing risks has been negatively criticised regarding validity and reliability due to effects of cognitive biases and a deterministic view of the possible consequences of risks. Even more, because of the lack of standardisation in risk matrices, a benchmarking across systems and organisations is not feasible. Taking into account the limitations mentioned, as well as the fact that the classification of hazards/causal factors, risk event(s) and consequences always depend on the analyst's view, this study proposes the Safety Risk Avoidance Capability (SAREAC) metric for a defined system. This metric focus on the prevention of risk events and combines quantitative and qualitative parameters referred in the literature but not yet exploited. SAREAC consists of two parts: the influence of hazards and the remaining effects of hazards after implementing or designing controls. Each of the SAREAC parts is calculated through specific steps which they result in a normalized score that allows more reliable comparisons amongst systems or over time. Data from a published risk assessment case study were used to demonstrate the use of SAREAC.
DOCUMENT
Background: Patient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients’ self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients’ physical functioning. Objective: This study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. Methods: The study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Both the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference −1.96, 95% CI −4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference −16.39, 95% CI −27.98 to −4.79) and several secondary outcomes. Conclusions: The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy.
MULTIFILE
Background: Patient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients’ self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients’ physical functioning. Objective: This study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. Methods The study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients’ risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up. Results: Both the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference −1.96, 95% CI −4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference −16.39, 95% CI −27.98 to −4.79) and several secondary outcomes. Conclusions: The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy.
LINK
This article examines to what extent and how cannabis users in different countries, with different cannabis legislation and policies practice normalization and self-regulation of cannabis use in everyday life. Data were collected in a survey among a convenience sample of 1,225 last-year cannabis users aged 18–40 from seven European countries, with cannabis policies ranging from relatively liberal to more punitive. Participants were recruited in or in the vicinity of Dutch coffeeshops. We assessed whether cannabis users experience and interpret formal control and informal social norms differently across countries with different cannabis policies. The findings suggest that many cannabis users set boundaries to control their use. Irrespective of national cannabis policy, using cannabis in private settings and setting risk avoidance rules were equally predominant in all countries. This illustrates that many cannabis users are concerned with responsible use, demonstrating the importance that they attach to discretion. Overall, self-regulation was highest in the most liberal country (the Netherlands). This indicates that liberalization does not automatically lead to chaotic or otherwise problematic use as critics of the policy have predicted, as the diminishing of formal control (law enforcement) is accompanied by increased importance of informal norms and stronger self-regulation. In understanding risk-management, societal tolerance of cannabis use seems more important than cross-national differences in cannabis policy. The setting of cannabis use and self-regulation rules were strongly associated with frequency of use. Daily users were less selective in choosing settings of use and less strict in self-regulation rules. Further differences in age, gender, and household status underline the relevance of a differentiated, more nuanced understanding of cannabis normalization.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Introduction Stroke survivors often fall during walking. To reduce fall risk, gait testing and training with avoidance of virtual obstacles is gaining popularity. However, it is unknown whether and how virtual obstacle crossing is associated with fall risk. Aim The present study assessed whether obstacle crossing characteristics are reliable and assessed differences in stroke survivors who prospectively experienced falls or no falls. Method We recruited twenty-nine community dwelling chronic stroke survivors. Participants crossed five virtual obstacles with increasing lengths. After a break, the test was repeated to assess test-retest reliability. For each obstacle length and trial, we determined; success rate, leading limb preference, pre and post obstacle distance, margins of stability, toe clearance, and crossing step length and speed. Subsequently, fall incidence was monitored using a fall calendar and monthly phone calls over a six-month period. Results Test-retest reliability was poor, but improved with increasing obstacle-length. Twelve participants reported at least one fall. No association of fall incidence with any of the obstacle crossing characteristics was found. Discussion Given the absence of height of the virtual obstacles, obstacle avoidance may have been relatively easy, allowing participants to cross obstacles in multiple ways, increasing variability of crossing characteristics and reducing the association with fall risk. Conclusion These finding cast some doubt on current protocols for testing and training of obstacle avoidance in stroke rehabilitation.
LINK
OBJECTIVE:To develop a blended physiotherapeutic intervention for patients with non-specific low back pain (e-Exercise LBP) and evaluate its proof of concept.DESIGN:Focus groups with patients, physiotherapists, and eHealth and LBP experts were conducted to investigate values according to the development of e-Exercise LBP. Proof of concept was evaluated in a multicentre study.SETTING:Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices (n=21 therapists).PARTICIPANTS:Adults with non-specific LBP (n=41).INTERVENTION:e-Exercise LBP was developed based on clinical LBP guidelines and the focus groups, using the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap. Face-to-face physiotherapy sessions were integrated with a web application consisting of 12 information lessons, video-supported exercises and a physical activity module with the option to gradually increase individuals' level of physical activity. The intervention could be tailored to patients' risk of persistent disabling LBP, according to the STarT Back Screening Tool.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Functional disability, pain, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and fear-avoidance beliefs, measured at baseline and 12 weeks.RESULTS:After 12 weeks, improvements were found in functional disability [Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: mean difference (MD) -12.2/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.3 to 16.1], pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale: MD -2.8/10; 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6), subjective physical activity (Short Questionnaire to Assess Health Enhancing Physical Activity: MD 11.5minutes/day; 95% CI -47.8 to 24.8) and objective sedentary behaviour (ActiGraph: MD -23.0minutes/day; 95% CI -8.9 to 55.0). Small improvements were found in objective physical activity and fear-avoidance beliefs. The option to gradually increase physical activity was activated for six patients (15%). On average, patients received seven face-to-face sessions alongside the web application.CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study provide the first indication of the effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP, particularly for disability and pain among patients with LBP. Future studies will focus on end-user experiences and (cost-) effectiveness.KEYWORDS:Low back pain; Physiotherapy; Telemedicine; e-Health
DOCUMENT
Objectives: To determine the psychometric properties of a questionnaire to assess fear of movement (kinesiophobia): the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-NL Heart), and to investigate the prevalence of kinesiophobia in patients attending cardiac rehabilitation.Methods: A total of 152 patients were evaluated with the TSK-NL Heart during intake and 7 days later. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity were assessed. For construct validity, the Cardiac Anxiety Questionnaire (CAQ) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were used. The factor structure of the TSK-NL Heart was determined by a principal component analysis (PCA).Results: After removal of 4 items due to low internal consistency, the TSK-NL Heart showed substantial reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC: 0.80). A strong positive correlation was found between the TSK-NL Heart and the CAQ (rs: 0.61). Strong positive correlations were found between the TSK-NL Heart and de HADS (Anxiety) (rs: 0.60) and between the TSK-NL Heart and the CAQ (rs: 0.61). The PCA revealed a 3-factor structure as most suitable (fear of injury, avoidance of physical activity, perception of risk). High levels of kinesiophobia were found in 45.4% of patients.Conclusion: The 13-item TSK-NL Heart has good psychometric properties, and we recommend using this version to assess kinesiophobia, which is present in a substantial proportion of patients referred for cardiac rehabilitation.Keywords: Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia; cardiac rehabilitation; exercise; fear of movement; physical activity; cardiovascular disease
DOCUMENT
A significant proportion of adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) experience difficulties in physical functioning, mood and social functioning, contributing to diminished quality of life. Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) is a risk factor for developing CMP with a striking 35-48% of patients with CMP reporting GJH. In case GJH occurs with one or more musculoskeletal manifestations such as chronic pain, trauma, disturbed proprioception and joint instability, it is referred to as generalized hypermobility spectrum disorder (G-HSD). Similar characteristics have been reported in children and adolescents with the hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS). In the management of CMP, a biopsychosocial approach is recommended as several studies have confirmed the impact of psychosocial factors in the development and maintenance of CMP. The fear-avoidance model (FAM) is a cognitive-behavioural framework that describes the role of pain-related fear as a determinant of CMP-related disability. Pubmed was used to identify existing relevant literature focussing on chronic musculoskeletal pain, generalized joint hypermobility, pain-related fear and disability. Relevant articles were cross-referenced to identify articles possibly missed during the primary screening. In this paper the current state of scientific evidence is presented for each individual component of the FAM in hypermobile adolescents with and without CMP. Based on this overview, the FAM is proposed explaining a possible underlying mechanism in the relations between GJH, pain-related fear and disability. It is assumed that GJH seems to make you more vulnerable for injury and experiencing more frequent musculoskeletal pain. But in addition, a vulnerability for heightened pain-related fear is proposed as an underlying mechanism explaining the relationship between GJH and disability. Further scientific confirmation of this applied FAM is warranted to further unravel the underlying mechanism. In explaining disability in individuals with G-HSD/hEDS, it is important to focus on both the physical components related to joint hypermobility, in tandem with the psychological components such as pain-related fear, catastrophizing thoughts and generalized anxiety.
DOCUMENT
A wide variety of risk factors for the occurrence and prognostic factors for persistence of non-specific musculoskeletal pain (MSP) are mentioned in the literature. A systematic review of all these factors is not available. Thus a systematic review was conducted to evaluate MSP risk factors and prognostic factors, classified according to the dimensions of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Candidate systematic reviews were identified in electronic medical journal databases, including the articles published between January 2000 and January 2008 that employed longitudinal cohort designs. The GRADE Working Group's criteria for assessing the overall level of evidence were used to evaluate the reviews. Nine systematic reviews were included, addressing a total of 67 factors. High evidence supported increased mobility of the lumbar spine and poor job satisfaction as risk factors for low back pain. There was also high evidence for intense pain during the onset of shoulder and neck pain and being middle aged as risk factors for shoulder pain. High evidence was also found for several factors that were not prognostic factors. For whiplash-associated disorders these factors were older age, being female, having angular deformity of the neck, and having an acute psychological response. Similarly, for persistence of low back pain, high evidence was found for having fear-avoidance beliefs and meagre social support at work. For low back pain, high evidence was found for meagre social support and poor job content at work as not being risk factors.
LINK
