Background Lifestyle intervention programmes target behavioural risk factors that contribute to cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Unfortunately, sustainable implementation of these programmes can be... Show moreBackground Lifestyle intervention programmes target behavioural risk factors that contribute to cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Unfortunately, sustainable implementation of these programmes can be challenging. Gaining insights into the barriers and facilitators for successful implementation is important for maximising public health impact of these interventions. The Healthy Heart (HH) programme is an example of a combined lifestyle intervention programme.Aim To analyse the reach, adoption, and implementation of the HH programme.Design & setting A mixed-methods study conducted in a general practice setting in The Netherlands.Method Quantitative data were collected from the Healthy Heart study (HH study), a non-randomised cluster stepped-wedge trial to assess the effect of the HH programme on patients at high risk of developing CVDs at practice level. Qualitative data were obtained through focus groups.Results Out of 73 approached general practices, 55 implemented the HH programme. A total of 1082 patients agreed to participate in the HH study, of whom 64 patients were referred to the HH programme and 41 patients participated. Several barriers for participation were identified such as time investment, lack of risk perception, and being confident in changing lifestyle on their own. Important barriers for healthcare providers (HCPs) to refer a patient were time investment, lack of information to sufficiently inform patients, and preconceived notions regarding which patients the programme was suitable for.Conclusion This study has offered insights from a patient and HCP perspective regarding barriers and facilitators for implementation of the group-based lifestyle intervention programme. The identified barriers and facilitators, and the suggested improvements, can be used by others who wish to implement a similar programme. Show less
Brouns, B.; Meesters, J.J.L.; Kloet, A.J. de; Vlieland, T.P.M.V.; Houdijk, S.; Arwert, H.J.; Bodegom-Vos, L. van 2022
Background Implementation of an eRehabilitation intervention named Fit After Stroke @Home (Fast@home) - including cognitive/physical exercise applications, activity-tracking, psycho-education -... Show moreBackground Implementation of an eRehabilitation intervention named Fit After Stroke @Home (Fast@home) - including cognitive/physical exercise applications, activity-tracking, psycho-education - after stroke resulted in health-related improvements. This study investigated what worked and why in the implementation. Methods Implementation activities (information provision, integration of Fast@home, instruction and motivation) were performed for 14 months and evaluated, using the Medical Research Council framework for process evaluations which consists of three evaluation domains (implementation, mechanisms of impact and contextual factors). Implementation activities were evaluated by field notes/surveys/user data, it's mechanisms of impact by surveys and contextual factors by field notes/interviews among 11 professionals. Surveys were conducted among 51 professionals and 73 patients. User data (n = 165 patients) were extracted from the eRehabilitation applications. Results Implementation activities were executed as planned. Of the professionals trained to deliver the intervention (33 of 51), 25 (75.8%) delivered it. Of the 165 patients, 82 (49.7%) were registered for Fast@home, with 54 patient (65.8%) using it. Mechanisms of impact showed that professionals and patients were equally satisfied with implementation activities (median score 7.0 [IQR 6.0-7.75] versus 7.0 [6.0-7.5]), but patients were more satisfied with the intervention (8.0 [IQR 7.0-8.0] versus 5.5 [4.0-7.0]). Guidance by professionals was seen as most impactful for implementation by patients and support of clinical champions and time given for training by professionals. Professionals rated the integration of Fast@home as insufficient. Contextual factors (financial cutbacks and technical setbacks) hampered the implementation. Conclusion Main improvements of the implementation of eRehabilitation are related to professionals' perceptions of the intervention, integration of eRehabilitation and contextual factors.Implication for rehabilitation To increase the use of eRehabilitation by patients, patients should be supported by their healthcare professional in their first time use and during the rehabilitation process. To increase the use of eRehabilitation by healthcare professionals, healthcare professionals should be (1) supported by a clinical champion and (2) provided with sufficient time for learning to work and getting familiar with the eRehabilitation program. Integration of eRehabilitation in conventional stroke rehabilitation (optimal blended care) is an important challenge and a prerequisite for the implementation of eRehabilitation in the clinical setting. Show less
Lennaerts-Kats, H.; Ebenau, A.; Steen, J.T. van der; Munneke, M.; Bloem, B.R.; Vissers, K.C.P.; ... ; Groot, M.M. 2022
Background: Palliative care for persons with Parkinson's disease (PD) is developing. However, little is known about the experiences of patients with PD in the palliative phase and of their family... Show moreBackground: Palliative care for persons with Parkinson's disease (PD) is developing. However, little is known about the experiences of patients with PD in the palliative phase and of their family caregivers. Objective: To explore needs of patients with PD in the palliative phase and of their family caregivers. Methods: A mixed methods case study design. Health care professionals included patients for whom the answer on the question "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?" was negative. At baseline, and after six and twelve months, we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and caregivers. Participants completed questionnaires on quality of life, disease burden, caregiver burden, grief, and positive aspects of caregiving. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive statistics, while we used thematic analysis for qualitative data. Results: Ten patients and eight family caregivers participated, of whom five patients died during the study period. While the quantitative data reflected a moderate disease burden, the qualitative findings indicated a higher disease burden. Longitudinal results showed small differences and changes in time. Patients reported a diverse range of symptoms, such as fatigue, immobility, cognitive changes, and hallucinations, which had a tremendous impact on their lives. Nevertheless, they rated their overall quality of life as moderate to positive. Family caregivers gradually learned to cope with difficult situations such delirium, fluctuations in functioning and hallucinations. They had great expertise in caring for the person with PD but did not automatically share this with health care professionals. Patients sensed a lack of time to discuss their complex needs with clinicians. Furthermore, palliative care was rarely discussed, and none of these patients had been referred to specialist palliative care services. Conclusion: Patients with PD experienced many difficulties in daily living. Patients seems to adapt to living with PD as they rated their quality of life as moderate to positive. Family caregivers became experts in the care for their loved one, but often learned on their own. An early implementation of the palliative care approach can be beneficial in addressing the needs of patients with PD and their family caregivers. Show less
Governments face a fundamental dilemma when asking expert groups for advice. Experts possess knowledge that can help governments design effective and legitimate policies. However, they can also... Show moreGovernments face a fundamental dilemma when asking expert groups for advice. Experts possess knowledge that can help governments design effective and legitimate policies. However, they can also propose different policies than those preferred by government. How do governments solve this conundrum? Through a mixed‐methods study, the article examines politico‐administrative control with expert advisory commissions in Norway. Arguing that both politicians and bureaucrats can take interest in limiting the gap between political/administrative policy preferences and expert group output, the article examines by what means they seek to control expert groups and how control varies across policy portfolios. It finds that while politicians rely on control by design, bureaucrats use both design and interventions. Moreover, political and bureaucratic controls are stronger in the area of financial/economic policy than elsewhere. The article makes a novel contribution to scholarship at the intersection of public administration and knowledge and policymaking. Show less
