Search

BACKGROUND: Currently, evidence about the long-term consequences of COVID-19 on return to work and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is limited. We evaluated return to work and its associations with baseline characteristics and physical and mental recovery over time in patients up to 1 year after hospitalization for COVID-19. Secondly, we aimed to evaluate the association between return to work and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: CO-FLOW, a multicenter prospective cohort study, enrolled adult participants hospitalized for COVID-19, aged ≥ 18 years within 6 months after hospital discharge. Return to work and HRQoL were collected at 3, 6, and 12 months after hospital discharge using the iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, respectively. Data were collected between July 1, 2020, and September 1, 2022. Generalized estimating equations with repeated measurements were used to assess outcomes over time. RESULTS: In the CO-FLOW study, 371 participants were employed pre-hospitalization. At 3, 6, and 12 months post-discharge, 50% (170/342), 29% (92/317), and 15% (44/295) of participants had not returned to work, and 21% (71/342), 21% (65/317), and 16% (48/295) only partially, respectively. ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.17 (0.10 to 0.30), p < 0.001), persistent fatigue (0.93 (0.90 to 0.97), p < 0.001), female sex (0.57 (0.36 to 0.90), p = 0.017), and older age (0.96 (0.93 to 0.98), p < 0.001) were independently associated with no return to work. ICU patients required a longer time to return to work than non-ICU patients. Patients who did not return or partially returned to work reported lower scores on all domains of HRQoL than those who fully returned. CONCLUSIONS: One year after hospitalization for COVID-19, only 69% of patients fully returned to work, whereas 15% did not return and 16% part

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program specifically designed for cardiac patients with obesity vs standard CR. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on observations in a randomized controlled trial. Setting: Three regional CR centers in the Netherlands. Participants: Cardiac patients (N=201) with obesity (BMI≥30 kg/m2) referred to CR. Interventions: Participants were randomized to a CR program specifically designed for patients with obesity (OPTICARE XL; N=102) or standard CR. OPTICARE XL included aerobic and strength exercise and behavioral coaching on diet and physical activity during 12 weeks, followed by a 9-month after-care program with “booster” educational sessions. Standard CR consisted of a 6- to 12-week aerobic exercise program, supplemented with cardiovascular lifestyle education. Main Outcome Measures: An economic evaluation, with an 18-month time horizon, in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs from the societal perspective was performed. Costs were reported in 2020 Euros, discounted at a 4% annual rate, and health effects were discounted at a 1.5% annual rate. Results: OPTICARE XL CR and standard CR resulted in comparable health gain per patient (0.958 vs 0.965 QALYs, respectively; P=.96). Overall, OPTICARE XL CR saved costs (-€4542) compared with the standard CR group. The direct costs for OPTICARE XL CR were higher than for standard CR (€10,712 vs €9951), whereas indirect costs were lower (€51,789 vs €57,092), but these differences were not significant. Conclusions: This economic evaluation showed no differences between OPTICARE XL CR and standard CR in health effects and costs in cardiac patients with obesity.

Low socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher prevalence of unhealthy lifestyles compared to a high SES. Health interventions that promote a healthy lifestyle, like eHealth solutions, face limited adoption in low SES groups. To improve the adoption of eHealth interventions, their alignment with the target group's attitudes is crucial. This study investigated the attitudes of people with a low SES toward health, healthcare, and eHealth. We adopted a mixed-method community-based participatory research approach with 23 members of a community center in a low SES neighborhood in the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. We conducted a first set of interviews and analyzed these using a grounded theory approach resulting in a group of themes. These basic themes' representative value was validated and refined by an online questionnaire involving a different sample of 43 participants from multiple community centers in the same neighborhood. We executed three focus groups to validate and contextualize the results. We identified two general attitudes based on nine profiles toward health, healthcare, and eHealth. The first general attitude, optimistically engaged, embodied approximately half our sample and involved light-heartedness toward health, loyalty toward healthcare, and eagerness to adopt eHealth. The second general attitude, doubtfully disadvantaged, represented roughly a quarter of our sample and was related to feeling encumbered toward health, feeling disadvantaged within healthcare, and hesitance toward eHealth adoption. The resulting attitudes strengthen the knowledge of the motivation and behavior of people with low SES regarding their health. Our results indicate that negative health attitudes are not as evident as often claimed. Nevertheless, intervention developers should still be mindful of differentiating life situations, motivations, healthcare needs, and eHealth expectations. Based on our findings, we recommend eHealth should fit into the person', Design Aesthetics, Applied Ergonomics and Design

Low socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher prevalence of unhealthy lifestyles compared to a high SES. Health interventions that promote a healthy lifestyle, like eHealth solutions, face limited adoption in low SES groups. To improve the adoption of eHealth interventions, their alignment with the target group's attitudes is crucial. This study investigated the attitudes of people with a low SES toward health, healthcare, and eHealth. We adopted a mixed-method community-based participatory research approach with 23 members of a community center in a low SES neighborhood in the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. We conducted a first set of interviews and analyzed these using a grounded theory approach resulting in a group of themes. These basic themes' representative value was validated and refined by an online questionnaire involving a different sample of 43 participants from multiple community centers in the same neighborhood. We executed three focus groups to validate and contextualize the results. We identified two general attitudes based on nine profiles toward health, healthcare, and eHealth. The first general attitude, optimistically engaged, embodied approximately half our sample and involved light-heartedness toward health, loyalty toward healthcare, and eagerness to adopt eHealth. The second general attitude, doubtfully disadvantaged, represented roughly a quarter of our sample and was related to feeling encumbered toward health, feeling disadvantaged within healthcare, and hesitance toward eHealth adoption. The resulting attitudes strengthen the knowledge of the motivation and behavior of people with low SES regarding their health. Our results indicate that negative health attitudes are not as evident as often claimed. Nevertheless, intervention developers should still be mindful of differentiating life situations, motivations, healthcare needs, and eHealth expectations. Based on our findings, we recommend eHealth should fit into the pers