Search

Item does not contain fulltext

Background: Trauma care faces challenges to innovating their services, such as with mobile health (mHealth) app, to improve the quality of care and patients’ health experience. Systematic needs inquiries and collaborations with professional and patient end users are highly recommended to develop and prepare future implementations of such innovations. Objective: This study aimed to develop a trauma mHealth app for patient information and support in accordance with the Center for eHealth Research and Disease Management road map and describe experiences of unmet information and support needs among injured patients with trauma, barriers to and facilitators of the provision of information and support among trauma care professionals, and drivers of value of an mHealth app in patients with trauma and trauma care professionals. Methods: Formative evaluations were conducted using quantitative and qualitative methods. Ten semistructured interviews with patients with trauma and a focus group with 4 trauma care professionals were conducted for contextual inquiry and value specification. User requirements and value drivers were applied in prototyping. Furthermore, a complementary quantitative discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 109 Dutch trauma surgeons, which enabled triangulation on value specification results. In the DCE, preferences were stated for hypothetical mHealth products with various attributes. Panel data from the DCE were analyzed using conditional and mixed logit models. Results: Patients disclosed a need for more psychosocial support and easy access to more extensive information on their injury, its consequences, and future prospects. Health care professionals designated workload as an essential issue; a digital solution should not require additional time. The conditional logit model of DCE results suggested that access to patient app data through electronic medical record integration (odds ratio [OR] 3.3

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS®) is more and more extensively being used in medical literature in patients with an orthopedic fracture. Yet, many articles studied heterogeneous groups with chronic orthopedic disorders in which fracture patients were included as well. At this moment, there is no systematic overview of the exact use of PROMIS measures in the orthopedic fracture population. Therefore this review aimed to provide an overview of the PROMIS health domains physical health, mental health and social health in patients suffering an orthopedic fracture. Methods: This systematic review was documented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled Trials, CINAHL and Google Scholar in December 2020 using a combination of MeSH terms and specific index terms related to orthopedic fractures and PROMIS questionnaires. Inclusion criteria were available full text articles that were describing the use of any PROMIS questionnaires in both the adult and pediatric extremity fracture population. Results: We included 51 relevant articles of which most were observational studies (n = 47, 92.2%). A single fracture population was included in 47 studies of which 9 involved ankle fractures (9/51; 17.6%), followed by humeral fractures (8/51; 15.7%), tibia fractures (6/51; 11.8%) and radial -or ulnar fractures (5/51; 9.8%). PROMIS Physical Function (n = 32, 32/51 = 62.7%) and PROMIS Pain Interference (n = 21, 21/51 = 41.2%) were most frequently used questionnaires. PROMIS measures concerning social (n = 5/51 = 9.8%) and mental health (10/51 = 19.6%) were much less often used as outcome measures in the fracture population. A gradually increasing use of PROMIS questionnaires in the orthopedic fracture population was seen since 2017. Conclusion: Many different PROMIS measures on multip

Objective: To explore experiences of recovery after physical trauma and identify long-term needs for posthospital care. Design, participants and setting: A qualitative study was conducted consisting of seven online focus groups among working-age adults who sustained their injury between 9 months and 5 years ago. Trauma patients discharged from a level 1 trauma centre in the Netherlands were divided into three groups based on the type of their physical trauma (monotrauma, polytrauma and traumatic brain injury). Group interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Despite differences in type and severity of their injuries, participants all struggled with the impact that trauma had on various aspects of their lives. They experienced recovery as an unpredictable and inconstant process aimed at resuming a meaningful life. Work was often perceived as an important part of recovery, though the value attributed to work could change over time. Participants struggled to bring the difficulties they encountered in their daily lives and at work to the attention of healthcare professionals (HCPs). While posthospital care needs varied between and across groups, all people stressed the need for flexible access to person-centred, multidisciplinary care and support after hospital discharge. Conclusions: This study reveals that people with a broad variety of injury experience recovery as a process towards resuming a meaningful life and report the need to expand trauma care to include comprehensive support to live well long term. Person-centred care might be helpful to enable HCPs to take people’s individual long-term needs and life situations into account. Furthermore, providing timely access to coordinated, multidisciplinary care after discharge is advocated. Integrated care models that span a network of multidisciplinary support around the person may help align existing services and may facilitate eas

Objectives: To determine the prognostic value of time driven changes in health status on return to work (RTW) in the first 2 years after traumatic injury. Design: A prospective longitudinal cohort study. All patient-reported outcomes were measured at 1 week, 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after injury. Setting: Ten participating hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants: Employed adult clinical injury patients admitted to the hospital between August 2015 and November 2016 (N=1245 patients). Main outcome measures: Data about (first) RTW were used from the patient-reported questionnaires (1=yes, 0=no). RTW was measured as the first time a patient started working after hospital admission. Time until RTW was calculated in weeks. Health status was measured with the EuroQol Five Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ5D) including a dimension to measure cognition. Results: At 24 months, 88.5% (n=1102) of the patients had returned to work. The median time to RTW was 6.6 weeks (IQR: 2–13). Patients’ health status was found to be an independent prognostic factor for RTW: a 0.1-unit increase in EQ5D (scale 0–1) translated into RTW being four times more likely (95% CI 1.60 to 11.94). Patients who had moderate or severe problems (0=no problems, 1=moderate or severe problems) with mobility (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98), anxiety/depression (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), usual activities (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.98), self-care (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99) and cognition (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94) were significantly less likely to RTW compared with patients with no problems. Conclusion: Increased self-reported health status over time is associated with a higher likelihood of RTW, independent of baseline risk factors, such as injury severity or education. Knowledge on patient-reported outcomes can contribute to the development of tailored RTW treatments. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes could be used as mon

Objectives To determine the prognostic value of time driven changes in health status on return to work (RTW) in the first 2 years after traumatic injury. Design A prospective longitudinal cohort study. All patient-reported outcomes were measured at 1 week, 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after injury. Setting Ten participating hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants Employed adult clinical injury patients admitted to the hospital between August 2015 and November 2016 (N=1245 patients). Main outcome measures Data about (first) RTW were used from the patient-reported questionnaires (1=yes, 0=no). RTW was measured as the first time a patient started working after hospital admission. Time until RTW was calculated in weeks. Health status was measured with the EuroQol Five Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ5D) including a dimension to measure cognition. Results At 24 months, 88.5% (n=1102) of the patients had returned to work. The median time to RTW was 6.6 weeks (IQR: 2-13). Patients' health status was found to be an independent prognostic factor for RTW: a 0.1-unit increase in EQ5D (scale 0-1) translated into RTW being four times more likely (95% CI 1.60 to 11.94). Patients who had moderate or severe problems (0=no problems, 1=moderate or severe problems) with mobility (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98), anxiety/depression (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), usual activities (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.98), self-care (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99) and cognition (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94) were significantly less likely to RTW compared with patients with no problems. Conclusion Increased self-reported health status over time is associated with a higher likelihood of RTW, independent of baseline risk factors, such as injury severity or education. Knowledge on patient-reported outcomes can contribute to the development of tailored RTW treatments. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes could be used as monitoring tool to guide postinjury care in the clinical setting and RTW process. Trial r