Search

Background. The increasing incidence of cancer combined with prolonged survival times seen throughout the western world increases the need for rehabilitation. Diagnosis and treatment for cancer may have substantial effects on the patients' physical, psychological, social and existential well-being. The aim of this paper is to describe the current situation in cancer rehabilitation in the Nordic countries, the Netherlands and Germany. Material and methods. Description of the current situation in cancer rehabilitation in the Nordic countries and literature review. Results. Rehabilitation as defined by multiple organizations covers a multidimensional view on chronic disease and its effect on the patient's life. The rehabilitation systems in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands differ depending on the differing social security and health-care systems, but rehabilitation provided is largely based on a similar, multidimensional and multidisciplinary understanding of cancer rehabilitation. Research on rehabilitation efforts in European countries indicates that there is substantial evidence with regard to single interventions which can be part of cancer rehabilitation. Discussion. In order to assure patients and families continuing quality of life, rehabilitation should be an integral and continuous part of all cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To develop and explore underlying dimensions of the Self-Regulation Assessment (SeRA) and psychometric features of potential components. Further, to identify associations between the SeRA and disability-management self-efficacy, type of diagnosis, and type of rehabilitation. Based on a previously developed model of self-regulation, expert and patient opinions, and cognitive interviews, a list of 22 items on self-regulation (the SeRA) was constructed. The SeRA was included in a cross-sectional survey among a multi-diagnostic group of 563 former rehabilitation patients. Exploratory analyses were conducted. Respondents had a mean age of 56.5 (SD 12.7) years. The largest diagnostic groups were chronic pain disorder and brain injury. Four components were found within the SeRA, labelled as "insight into own health condition," "insight into own capabilities," "apply self-regulation," and "organization of help." Cronbach's alpha was high (total scale: 0.93, subscales: range 0.85–0.89). Only scores on the first subscale showed a ceiling effect. Subscale three showed the highest correlation with a self-efficacy measure. Small differences in SeRA total scores (range 71.6–78.1) were found between different diagnostic groups. The SeRA is a new self-regulation measure with four subscales. Further research is needed to establish the validity and reliability of the SeRA. The Self-Regulation Assessment (SeRA) was developed to provide a comprehensive measurement of self-regulation among rehabilitation populations. The SeRA could potentially be used to identify persons with self-regulation problems at the start of rehabilitation treatment and measure outcomes of rehabilitation for self-regulation. The SeRA could potentially be used to help analyse outcomes of rehabilitation practice as well as evaluate interventions on self-regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The need for physical cancer rehabilitation programmes (PCRPs), addressing adverse effects from cancer, is growing. Implementing these programmes into daily practice is still a challenge. Since barriers for successful implementation often arise at different levels in healthcare, multi-faceted strategies focusing on multiple levels are likely more effective than single-faceted strategies. Nevertheless, most studies implementing PCRPs used strategies directed at patients only. The aim of this study is to develop and identify the most effective strategy to implement PCRPs into daily care. We want to assess the added value of a multi-faceted strategy compared with a single-faceted patient-directed strategy. Methods/design: We will conduct a clustered controlled before and after study (CBA) in the Netherlands that compares two strategies to implement PCRPs. The patient-directed (PD) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient level. The multi-faceted (MF) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient, professional and organizational levels. Eligibility criteria are as follows: (A) patients: adults; preferably (history of) cancer in the gastro-intestinal, reproductive and/or urological system; successful primary treatment; and without recurrence/metastases. (B) Healthcare professionals: involved in cancer care. A stepwise approach will be followed: Step 1: Analysis of the current implementation of PCRPs and the examination of barriers and facilitators for implementation, via a qualitative study with patients (four focus groups n = 10-12) and their healthcare workers (four focus groups n = 10-12 and individual interviews n = 30-40) and collecting data on adherence to quality indicators (n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital). Step 2: Selection and development of interventions to create a PD and MF strategy during expert roundtable discussions, using the knowledge gained in step 1 and a literature search of the effect of strategies for implementing PCRPs. Step 3: Test and compare both strategies with a clustered CBA (effectiveness, process evaluation and costs), by data extraction from existing registration systems, questionnaires and interviews. For the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital. For the process evaluation, n = 50 patients, 5 per hospital, and n = 40 healthcare professionals, 4 per hospital. Main outcome measures: % screened patients, % referrals to PCRPs, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Trail registration: NCT02205853 (ClinicalTrials.gov) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We tested the effects on problem-solving, anxiety and depression of 12-week group-based self-management cancer rehabilitation, combining comprehensive physical training (PT) and cognitive-behavioural problem-solving training (CBT), compared with PT. We expected that PT + CBT would outperform PT in improvements in problem-solving (Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R)), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)), and that more anxious and/or depressed participants would benefit most from adding CBT to PT. Cancer survivors (aged 48.8 ± 10.9 years, all cancer types, medical treatment completed) were randomly assigned to PT + CBT (n = 76) or PT (n = 71). Measurement occasions were: before and post-rehabilitation (12 weeks), 3- and 9-month follow-up. A non-randomised usual care comparison group (UCC) (n = 62) was measured at baseline and after 12 weeks. Longitudinal intention-to-treat analyses showed no differential pattern in change between PT + CBT and PT. Post-rehabilitation, participants in PT and PT + CBT reported within-group improvements in problem-solving (negative problem orientation; p < 0.01), anxiety (p < 0.001) and depression (p < 0.001), which were maintained at 3- and 9-month follow-up (p < 0.05). Compared with UCC post-rehabilitation, PT and PT + CBT only improved in anxiety (p < 0.05). CBT did not add to the effects of PT and had no extra benefits for higher distressed participants. PT was feasible and sufficient for durably reducing cancer survivors' anxiety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]