Understanding recovery of people recovering from COVID-19 receiving treatment from primary care allied health professionals: a mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: To quantitatively assess changes in recovery of people recovering from COVID-19 treated by a primary care allied health professional, and to qualitatively describe how they dealt with persistent complaints. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This mixed-methods study is part of a Dutch prospective cohort study, from which thirty participants were selected through purposive sampling. Quantitative data on recovery were collected at start of treatment and 6 months. Additionally, by use of semi-structured interviews participants were asked on how persistent complaints influenced their lives, and how they experienced received primary care allied health treatment. RESULTS: Despite reported improvements, most participants still experienced limitations at 6 months. Hospital participants reported a higher severity of complaints, but home participants reported more diverse complaints and a longer recovery. Most participants were satisfied with the primary care allied healthcare. Tender loving care and a listening ear, learning to manage limits, and support and acceptance of building up in small steps were perceived as contributing most to participants' recovery. CONCLUSION: Although improvements were reported on almost all outcomes, most participants suffered from persistent complaints. Despite these persistent complaints, many participants reported being better able to cope with persistent complaints because they had decreased substantially in their intensity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registry (NCT04735744).

Participants recovering from COVID-19 receiving treatment from primary care allied health professionals reported improvements after 6 months, but still experienced persistent complaints.Home participants reported more persistent complaints and a longer recovery from COVID-19 than hospital participants.Personal attention for patients recovering from COVID-19 is necessary. Next to implementing a treatment plan (e.g. physical exercise), primary care allied health professionals should also pay attention to listening to the patient's story and offering support.Interprofessional collaboration between primary care allied health professionals, with a unified message to patients, is essential.

"I am busy surviving" - Views about physical exercise in older adults scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Seventy percent of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are aged 65 years or older. Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (n.d.) [1] Surgery is an important treatment modality, depending on cancer stage and the resectability of the tumor. Frail older patients are at an increased risk for complications and reduced self-care capacity after surgery. Increasing physical fitness preoperatively (prehabilitation) might improve treatment outcomes, but challenges remain with regard to uptake, attrition, and non-compliance. The objectives of this study were to investigate the barriers, facilitators, and preferences for preoperative exercise programs in older patients scheduled for CRC surgery. METHODS: This was a qualitative study, using in-depth interviews of fifteen patients aged 65 years and older and surgically treated for CRC, thirteen informal care givers (ICs) and nine health care providers (HCPs) with experience in prehabilitation. Data analysis was done through thematic coding analysis. RESULTS: Limited time, not receiving or misunderstanding information, physical ailments, and emotional impact of the diagnosis are barriers to preoperative exercise. Not having physical complaints (Patients, ICs, HCPs), understandable information provided by a physician (Patients, ICs), and low cost programs (ICs, HCPs) facilitate exercise. Exercise should not be too intensive (Patients, ICs) and should be adjusted to personal preferences and be provided close to home (Patients, ICs, HCPs). CONCLUSIONS: To engage frail older adults with CRC in preoperative exercise programs information on exercise should improve. Exercise programs should be easily accessible and take personal preferences, needs and abilities into account.

Conservative interventions for preventing clinically detectable upper-limb lymphoedema in patients who are at risk of developing lymphoedema after breast cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer-related lymphoedema can be a debilitating long-term sequela of breast cancer treatment. Several studies have investigated the effectiveness of different treatment strategies to reduce the risk of breast cancer-related lymphoedema. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of conservative (non-surgical and non-pharmacological) interventions for preventing clinically-detectable upper-limb lymphoedema after breast cancer treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's (CBCG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, PsycINFO, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in May 2013. Reference lists of included trials and other systematic reviews were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that reported lymphoedema as the primary outcome and compared any conservative intervention to either no intervention or to another conservative intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Outcome measures included lymphoedema, infection, range of motion of the shoulder, pain, psychosocial morbidity, level of functioning in activities of daily life (ADL), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Where possible, meta-analyses were performed. Risk ratio (RRs) or hazard ratio (HRs) were reported for dichotomous outcomes or lymphoedema incidence, and mean differences (MDs) for range of motion and patient-reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials involving 1205 participants were included. The duration of patient follow-up ranged from 2 days to 2 years after the intervention. Overall, the quality of the evidence generated by these trials was low, due to risk of bias in the included trials and inconsistency in the results. Manual lymph drainageIn total, four studies used manual lymph drainage (MLD) in combination with usual care or other interventions. In one study, lymphoedema incidence was lower in patients receiving MLD and usual care (consisting of standard education or exercise, or both) compared to usual care alone. A second study reported no difference in lymphoedema incidence when MLD was combined with physiotherapy and education compared to physiotherapy alone. Two other studies combining MLD with compression and scar massage or exercise observed a reduction in lymphoedema incidence compared to education only, although this was not significant in one of the studies. Two out of the four studies reported on shoulder mobility where MLD combined with exercise gave better shoulder mobility for lateral arm movement (shoulder abduction) and forward flexion in the first weeks after breast cancer surgery, compared to education only (mean difference for abduction 22°; 95% confidence interval (CI) 14 to 30; mean difference for forward flexion 14°; 95% CI 7 to 22). Two of the studies on MLD reported on pain, with inconsistent results. Results on HRQoL in two studies on MLD were also contradictory. Exercise: early versus delayed start of shoulder mobilising exercisesThree studies examined early versus late start of postoperative shoulder exercises. The pooled relative risk of lymphoedema after an early start of exercises was 1.69 (95% CI 0.94 to 3.01, 3 studies, 378 participants). Shoulder forward flexion was better at one and six months follow-up for participants who started early with mobilisation exercises compared to a delayed start (two studies), but no meta-analysis could be performed due to statistical heterogeneity. There was no difference in shoulder mobility or self-reported shoulder disability at 12 months follow-up (one study). One study evaluated HRQoL and reported difference at one year follow-up (mean difference 1.6 points, 95% CI -2.14 to 5.34, on the Trial Outcome Index of the FACT-B). Two studies collected data on wound drainage volumes and only one study reported higher wound drainage volumes in the early exercise group. Exercise: resistance trainingTwo studies compared progressive resistance training to restricted activity. Resistance training after breast cancer treatment did not increase the risk of developing lymphoedema (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.13, two studies, 358 participants) provided that symptoms are monitored and treated immediately if they occur. One out of the two studies measured pain where participants in the resistance training group reported pain more often at three months and six months compared to the control group. One study reported HRQoL and found no significant difference between the groups. Patient education, monitoring and early interventionOne study investigated the effects of a comprehensive outpatient follow-up programme, consisting of patient education, exercise, monitoring of lymphoedema symptoms and early intervention for lymphoedema, compared to education alone. Lymphoedema incidence was lower in the comprehensive outpatient follow-up programme (at any time point) compared to education alone (65 people). Participants in the outpatient follow-up programme had a significantly faster recovery of shoulder abduction compared to the education alone group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current available evidence, we cannot draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions containing MLD. The evidence does not indicate a higher risk of lymphoedema when starting shoulder-mobilising exercises early after surgery compared to a delayed start (i.e. seven days after surgery). Shoulder mobility (that is, lateral arm movements and forward flexion) is better in the short term when starting shoulder exercises earlier compared to later. The evidence suggests that progressive resistance exercise therapy does not increase the risk of developing lymphoedema, provided that symptoms are closely monitored and adequately treated if they occur.Given the degree of heterogeneity encountered, limited precision, and the risk of bias across the included studies, the results of this review should be interpreted with caution.