| 1. |
- Burridge, Jane, et al.
(författare)
-
Development of European evidence-based recommendations for evaluation of the upper limb neurorehabilitation
- 2015
-
Ingår i: 4th Baltic and North Sea Conference on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. Riga, Latvia September 16–18, 2015. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine.. - 1650-1977.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background Although use of standardized and scientifically sound outcome measures is highly encouraged in clinical practice and research, there is still no clear recommendation on which tools should be preferred for upper limb assessment. Agreement on measures in neurorehabilitation is also required to facilitate multi-center research and meta-analysis. The European Network on Robotics for Neurorehabilitation, funded by the European Co-operation in science and technology (COST) action is developing evidence-based recommendations for evaluation of the upper limb in neurorehabilitation. The primary aim of the recommendations is to improve the quality of upper limb neurorehabilitation through the adoption of standardized, agreed protocols for assessment and choice of measurement tools in research and clinical practice. The secondary aim is to inform and influence the development of new upper limb neurorehabilitation technologies both as therapies and assessment tools and to translate useful technologies into clinical practice. Methods The Recommendations will incorporate 3 sources of evidence: systematic reviews of upper limb outcome measures, current clinical guidelines and Delphi consensus methodology in stroke and neurorehabilitation. Results Systematic reviews: From 13 systematic reviews, 53 measures were identified of which 13 met the standardized criteria for the psychometric properties. The strongest level of measurement quality and clinical utility was demonstrated for Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Action Research Arm Test, Box and Block Test, Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory, Wolf Motor Function Test and ABILHAND. Clinical guidelines: Both National and published guidelines recommend assessment within the ICF framework. The National Guidelines provide little guidance on assessment beyond that valid, reliable and responsive measurement tools should be used by trained personnel. Delphi consensus: Consensus recommends a framework for assessment including categories and, where possible, specific measures (clinical and technology-based), definition of a minimum set of measures, duration and frequency for assessments. Conclusions The final recommendations will include the purpose of assessment, recommendations on when and by whom assessments should be conducted, how long an assessment should take and what measures and tools should be used. Recommendations are made for clinical practice and research separately. A minimum set of measures will be recommended for use with all patients undergoing upper limb neurorehabilitation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Roose, Eva, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of perceived injustice-targeted pain neuroscience education compared with biomedically focused education in breast cancer survivors: a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (BCS-PI trial)
- 2024
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - 2044-6055. ; 14:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- INTRODUCTION: Current treatments for pain in breast cancer survivors (BCSs) are mostly biomedically focused rather than biopsychosocially driven. However, 22% of BCSs with pain are experiencing perceived injustice, which is a known predictor for adverse pain outcomes and opioid prescription due to increased maladaptive pain behaviour. Educational interventions such as pain neuroscience education (PNE) are suggested to target perceived injustice. In addition, motivational interviewing can be an effective behavioural change technique. This trial aims to examine whether perceived injustice-targeted PNE with the integration of motivational interviewing is superior to biomedically focused pain education in reducing pain after 12 months in BCS with perceived injustice and pain. In addition, improvements in quality of life, perceived injustice and opioid use are evaluated, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will finally result in a recommendation concerning the use of perceived injustice-targeted PNE in BCSs with perceived injustice and pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This two-arm multicentre randomised controlled trial will recruit female BCS (n=156) with pain and perceived injustice. Participants will be randomly assigned to perceived injustice-targeted PNE or biomedically focused pain education in each centre. Both interventions include an online session, an information leaflet and three one-to-one sessions. The primary outcome (pain), secondary outcomes (quality of life, perceived injustice and outcomes for cost-effectiveness analysis) and explanatory outcomes (pain phenotyping, sleep, fatigue and cognitive-emotional factors) will be assessed at baseline and at 0, 6, 12 and 24months postintervention using self-reported questionnaires online. Treatment effects over time will be evaluated using linear mixed model analyses. Additionally, a cost-utility analysis will be done from a healthcare payer and societal perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethical agreement was obtained from the Main Ethics Committee (B.U.N.1432020000068) at the University Hospital Brussels and all other participating hospitals. Study results will be disseminated through presentations, conferences, social media, press and journals.
|
|
| 3. |
- Roose, Eva, et al.
(författare)
-
Perceived Injustice in Cancer Survivors: Population-Specific Cut-Off Score and Relations with Personal Factors, Symptoms and Quality of Life-A Cross-Sectional Study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE. - 2077-0383. ; 12:18
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Fatigue and pain are the most common side effects impacting quality of life (QoL) in cancer survivors. Recent insights have shown that perceived injustice (PI) can play a substantial role in these side effects, but research on cancer survivors is scarce. Furthermore, guidelines for recognizing clinically relevant levels of PI in cancer survivors are missing. The aims of this study are to provide a clinically relevant cut-off for PI and to explore relationships between personal characteristics, symptoms, and QoL with PI. This multicenter, cross-sectional study uses the Injustice Experience Questionnaire (IEQ), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Patient-Specific Complaints (PSC), Multidimensional Fatigue Index (MFI), and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30). A clinical cut-off for PI was identified based on the 75th percentile of IEQ scores. Univariate and multivariate regressions explored the relationship between PI and personal characteristics (sex, age, cancer type, treatment type), symptoms (pain intensity, fatigue), and QoL (daily activity complaints, cancer-related QoL). Cancer survivors (n = 121) were included, and a cut-off of 20 was identified. Significant indirect associations were found between chemotherapy, NPRS, PSC, MFI, and EORTC-QLQ-C30 with PI. In the multivariate model, only MFI (B = 0.205; 95% CI: 0.125-0.018) and age (B = 0.086; 95% CI: -0.191-0.285) maintained a significant association with PI.
|
|
