Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Neurophysiol Clin ; 54(5): 102997, 2024 Jul 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38991470

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Aberrant movement-related cortical activity has been linked to impaired motor function in Parkinson's disease (PD). Dopaminergic drug treatment can restore these, but dosages and long-term treatment are limited by adverse side-effects. Effective non-pharmacological treatments could help reduce reliance on drugs. This experiment reports the first study of home-based electroencephalographic (EEG) neurofeedback training as a non-pharmacological candidate treatment for PD. Our primary aim was to test the feasibility of our EEG neurofeedback intervention in a home setting. METHODS: Sixteen people with PD received six home visits comprising symptomology self-reports, a standardised motor assessment, and a precision handgrip force production task while EEG was recorded (visits 1, 2 and 6); and 3 × 1-hr EEG neurofeedback training sessions to supress the EEG mu rhythm before initiating handgrip movements (visits 3 to 5). RESULTS: Participants successfully learned to self-regulate mu activity, and this appeared to expedite the initiation of precision movements (i.e., time to reach target handgrip force off-medication pre-intervention = 628 ms, off-medication post-intervention = 564 ms). There was no evidence of wider symptomology reduction (e.g., Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III Motor Examination, off-medication pre-intervention = 29.00, off-medication post intervention = 30.07). Interviews indicated that the intervention was well-received. CONCLUSION: Based on the significant effect of neurofeedback on movement-related cortical activity, positive qualitative reports from participants, and a suggestive benefit to movement initiation, we conclude that home-based neurofeedback for people with PD is a feasible and promising non-pharmacological treatment that warrants further research.

2.
Int J Palliat Nurs ; 27(10): 490-503, 2021 Dec 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34919416

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Palliative care improves the health of children with a life-limiting condition and appears to draw implicitly on concepts shared with a model of health promotion. However, to date there has been no scrutiny about how this relationship may shape understanding about children's palliative care. AIM: To explore the influence of health promoting concepts on children's palliative care models, policies and guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Health and social care databases were searched for policies, models and guidelines published between 2000-2018. Additional searches of professional national and international healthcare websites, children's palliative care charities and UK and Ireland government websites were conducted. METHODS: A best fit framework synthesis was used. FINDINGS: A total of 55 policies and guidelines were reviewed for the framework synthesis. Eight themes were generated: (1) health promoting children's palliative care policy and guidelines; (2) planning ahead; (3) creating a supportive environment; (4) enabling coping and independence; (5) reorienting children's palliative care sectors; (6) the lengthening trajectory of need for support; (7) strengthening community engagement in children's palliative care; and (8) quality of life and value-based ideologies. CONCLUSION: The best fit framework synthesis confirmed a conceptual relationship between children's palliative care and health promotion. This is captured in a new model that will extend professionals' understanding.


Subject(s)
Palliative Care , Quality of Life , Child , Health Policy , Health Promotion , Humans , Ireland
4.
BMJ Open ; 8(8): e021486, 2018 08 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30093516

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe the implementation of an enhanced rehabilitation programme for elderly hip fracture patients with mental capacity, in a randomised feasibility study compared with usual rehabilitation. To compare processes between the two and to collect the views of patients, carers and therapy staff about trial participation. DESIGN: Mixed methods process evaluation in a randomised feasibility study. SETTING: Patient participants were recruited on orthopaedic and rehabilitation wards; the intervention was delivered in the community following hospital discharge. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one older adults (aged ≥65 years) recovering from surgical treatment (replacement arthroplasty or internal fixation) following hip fracture, who were living independently prior to fracture and had mental capacity and 31 of their carers. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care (control) or usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention). The enhanced rehabilitation consisted of a patient-held information workbook, goal-setting diary and up to six additional therapy sessions. PROCESS EVALUATION COMPONENTS: Recruitment of sites and rehabilitation teams, response of rehabilitation teams, recruitment and reach in patient and carer participants, intervention delivery, delivery to individuals, response of individual patients to the enhanced intervention or usual rehabilitation, response of carer participants, unintended consequences and testing intervention theory and context. RESULTS: Usual rehabilitation care was very variable. The enhanced rehabilitation group received a mean of five additional therapy sessions. All of the returned goal-setting diaries had inputs from the therapy team, and half had written comments by the patients and carers. Focus group themes: variation of usual care and its impact on delivering the intervention; the importance of goal setting; the role of the therapist in providing reassurance about safe physical activities; and acceptability of the extra therapy sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learnt for a future definitive RCT include how to enhance recruitment and improve training materials, the workbook, delivery of the extra therapy sessions and recording of usual rehabilitation care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22464643; Post- results.


Subject(s)
Community Health Services , Hip Fractures/rehabilitation , Aged , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/rehabilitation , Feasibility Studies , Focus Groups , Fracture Fixation, Internal/rehabilitation , Hip Fractures/surgery , Humans , Male , Program Evaluation
5.
Pilot Feasibility Stud ; 4: 190, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30603099

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a chronic, neurodegenerative disorder affecting over 137,000 people in the UK and an estimated five million people worldwide. Treatment typically involves long-term dopaminergic therapy, which improves motor symptoms, but is associated with dose-limiting side effects. Developing effective complementary, non-pharmacological interventions is of considerable importance. This paper presents the protocol for a three-arm pilot study to test the implementation of computer-based cognitive training that aims to produce improvements or maintenance of motor slower and motor fatigue symptoms in people with PD. The primary objective is to assess recruitment success and usability of external data capture devices during the intervention. The secondary objectives are to obtain estimates of variance and effect size for changes in primary and secondary outcome measures to inform sample size calculations and study design for a larger scale trial. METHODS: The study aims to recruit between 40 and 60 adults with early- to middle-stage PD (Hoehn and Yahr 1-3) from National Health Service (NHS) outpatients' clinics and support groups across North Wales, UK. Participants will be randomised to receive training over five sessions in either a spatial grid navigation task, a sequential subtraction task or a spatial memory task. Patient-centred outcome measures will include motor examination scores from part 3 of the UPDRS-III and data from movement kinematic and finger tapping tasks. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide information regarding the feasibility of conducting a larger randomised control trial of non-pharmacological cognitive interventions of motor symptoms in PD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12565492. Registered 4 April 2018-retrospectively registered, in accordance with the WHO Trial Registration Data Set.

6.
Health Technol Assess ; 21(44): 1-528, 2017 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28836493

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Proximal femoral fracture is a major health problem in old age, with annual UK health and social care costs of £2.3B. Rehabilitation has the potential to maximise functional recovery and maintain independent living, but evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To develop an enhanced community-based rehabilitation package following surgical treatment for proximal femoral fracture and to assess acceptability and feasibility for a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation. DESIGN: Phase I - realist review, survey and focus groups to develop the rehabilitation package. Phase II - parallel-group, randomised (using a dynamic adaptive algorithm) feasibility study with focus groups and an anonymised cohort study. SETTING: Recruitment was from orthopaedic wards of three acute hospitals in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, North Wales. The intervention was delivered in the community following hospital discharge. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) who had received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by the clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received usual care (control) or usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention). Usual care was variable and consisted of multidisciplinary rehabilitation delivered by the acute hospital, community hospital and community services depending on need and availability. The intervention was designed to enhance rehabilitation by improving patients' self-efficacy and increasing the amount and quality of patients' practice of physical exercise and activities of daily living. It consisted of a patient-held information workbook, a goal-setting diary and six additional therapy sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL) index. The secondary outcome measures included the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people, General Self-Efficacy Scale, Falls Efficacy Scale - International (FES-I), Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and service use measures. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers. RESULTS: Sixty-two participants were recruited (23% of those who were eligible), 61 were randomised (control, n = 32; intervention, n = 29) and 49 (79%) were followed up at 3 months. Compared with the cohort study, a younger, healthier subpopulation was recruited. There were minimal differences in most outcomes between the two groups, including the BADL index, with an adjusted mean difference of 0.5 (Cohen's d = 0.29). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement on the NEADL scale relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d = 0.63). There was a trend for greater improvement in FES-I and HADS in the intervention group, but with small effect sizes, with an adjusted mean difference of 4.2 (Cohen's d = 0.31) and 1.3 (Cohen's d = 0.20), respectively. The cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a possible small relative increase in quality-adjusted life-years in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention, although recruitment was challenging. The NEADL scale was more responsive than the BADL index, suggesting that the intervention could enable participants to regain better levels of independence compared with usual care. This should be tested in a definitive Phase III RCT. There were two main limitations of the study: the feasibility study lacked power to test for differences between the groups and a ceiling effect was observed in the primary measure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22464643. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library for further project information.


Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis/economics , Hip Fractures/rehabilitation , Technology Assessment, Biomedical , Activities of Daily Living , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Male , United Kingdom
7.
BMJ Open ; 6(10): e012422, 2016 10 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27707828

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a rigorous feasibility study for a future definitive parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation of an enhanced rehabilitation package for hip fracture. SETTING: Recruitment from 3 acute hospitals in North Wales. Intervention delivery in the community. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (aged ≥65) who received surgical treatment for hip fracture, lived independently prior to fracture, had mental capacity (assessed by clinical team) and received rehabilitation in the North Wales area. INTERVENTION: Remote randomisation to usual care (control) or usual care+enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention), including six additional home-based physiotherapy sessions delivered by a physiotherapist or technical instructor, novel information workbook and goal-setting diary. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: Barthel Activities of Daily Living (BADL). Secondary measures included Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale (NEADL), EQ-5D, ICECAP capability, a suite of self-efficacy, psychosocial and service-use measures and costs. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 3-month follow-up by blinded researchers. RESULTS: 62 participants were recruited, 61 randomised (control 32; intervention 29) and 49 (79%) completed 3-month follow-up. Minimal differences occurred between the 2 groups for most outcomes, including BADL (adjusted mean difference 0.5). The intervention group showed a medium-sized improvement in the NEADL relative to the control group, with an adjusted mean difference between groups of 3.0 (Cohen's d 0.63), and a trend for greater improvement in self-efficacy and mental health, but with small effect sizes. The mean cost of delivering the intervention was £231 per patient. There was a small relative improvement in quality-adjusted life year in the intervention group. No serious adverse events relating to the intervention were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The trial methods were feasible in terms of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation package should be tested in a phase III RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22464643; Results.


Subject(s)
Hip Fractures/rehabilitation , Physical Therapy Modalities , Activities of Daily Living , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Feasibility Studies , Female , Home Care Services/economics , Humans , Male , Physical Therapy Modalities/economics , Quality of Life , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Self Efficacy , Wales
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...