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
Objective: To compare the effect on disability and quality of life, of conventional rehabilitation (control group) with individualized, tailored eRehabilitation intervention alongside conventional... Show moreObjective: To compare the effect on disability and quality of life, of conventional rehabilitation (control group) with individualized, tailored eRehabilitation intervention alongside conventional rehabilitation (Fast@home; intervention group), for people with stroke.Methods: Pre-post design. The intervention comprised cognitive (Braingymmer (R)) and physical (Telere-validatie (R)/Physitrack (R)) exercises, activity-tracking (Activ8 (R)) and psycho-education. Assessments were made at admission (T0) and after 3 (T3) and 6 months (T6). The primary outcome concerned disability (Stroke Impact Scale; SIS). Secondary outcomes were: health-related qual-ity of life, fatigue, self-management, participation and physical activity. Changes in scores be-tween T0-T3, T3-T6, and T0-T6 were compared by analysis of variance and linear mixed models.Results: The study included 153 and 165 people with stroke in the control and intervention groups, respectively. In the intervention group, 82 (50%) people received the intervention, of whom 54 (66%) used it. Between T3 and T6, the change in scores for the SIS subscales Communication (control group/ intervention group -1.7/-0.3) and Physical strength (-5.7/3.3) were significantly greater in the total intervention group (all mean differences< minimally clinically important differences). No significant differences were found for other SIS subscales or secondary outcomes, or between T0-T3 and T0-T6.Conclusion: eRehabilitation alongside conventional stroke rehabilitation had a small positive effect on communication and physical strength on the longer term, compared to conventional rehabilitation only. Show less
