OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an eHealth intervention on recovery and return to work, after gynaecological surgery. DESIGN: Randomised multicentre trial that ran from March 2010 until September 2011. SETTING: Secondary care in seven general and university hospitals in The Netherlands. POPULATION: A cohort of 215 women (aged 18-65 years) who had a hysterectomy and/or laparoscopic adnexal surgery for a benign indication. METHODS: The women were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 110) or the control group (n = 105). The intervention group received an eHealth programme that provided personalised tailor-made pre- and postoperative instructions on the resumption of daily activities, including work, and tools to improve self-empowerment and to identify recovery problems. The control group was provided with access to a control website. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the duration of sick leave until a full sustainable return to work. Secondary outcome measures were quality of life, general recovery, and pain intensity. RESULTS: In intention-to-treat analysis the eHealth intervention was effective on time to return to work (hazard ratio 1.43; 95% confidence interval 1.003-2.040; P = 0.048). The median duration of sick leave until a full sustainable return to work was 39 days (interquartile range 20-67 days) in the intervention group and 48 days (interquartile range 21-69 days) in the control group. After 26 weeks pain intensity was lower (visual analogue scale, cumulative odds ratio 1.84; 95% confidence interval 1.04-3.25; P = 0.035) and quality of life was higher (Rand-36 health survey, between-group difference 30, 95% confidence interval 4-57; P = 0.024) in the intervention group, compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the eHealth intervention by women after gynaecological surgery results in a faster return to work, with a higher quality of life and less pain.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an eHealth intervention on recovery and return to work, after gynaecological surgery. DESIGN: Randomised multicentre trial that ran from March 2010 until September 2011. SETTING: Secondary care in seven general and university hospitals in The Netherlands. POPULATION: A cohort of 215 women (aged 18-65 years) who had a hysterectomy and/or laparoscopic adnexal surgery for a benign indication. METHODS: The women were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 110) or the control group (n = 105). The intervention group received an eHealth programme that provided personalised tailor-made pre- and postoperative instructions on the resumption of daily activities, including work, and tools to improve self-empowerment and to identify recovery problems. The control group was provided with access to a control website. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the duration of sick leave until a full sustainable return to work. Secondary outcome measures were quality of life, general recovery, and pain intensity. RESULTS: In intention-to-treat analysis the eHealth intervention was effective on time to return to work (hazard ratio 1.43; 95% confidence interval 1.003-2.040; P = 0.048). The median duration of sick leave until a full sustainable return to work was 39 days (interquartile range 20-67 days) in the intervention group and 48 days (interquartile range 21-69 days) in the control group. After 26 weeks pain intensity was lower (visual analogue scale, cumulative odds ratio 1.84; 95% confidence interval 1.04-3.25; P = 0.035) and quality of life was higher (Rand-36 health survey, between-group difference 30, 95% confidence interval 4-57; P = 0.024) in the intervention group, compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the eHealth intervention by women after gynaecological surgery results in a faster return to work, with a higher quality of life and less pain.
Authors: Nicole Vogel; Stefan Schandelmaier; Thomas Zumbrunn; Shanil Ebrahim; Wout El de Boer; Jason W Busse; Regina Kunz Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-03-30
Authors: Paul Baker; Carol Coole; Avril Drummond; Sayeed Khan; Catriona McDaid; Catherine Hewitt; Lucksy Kottam; Sarah Ronaldson; Elizabeth Coleman; David A McDonald; Fiona Nouri; Melanie Narayanasamy; Iain McNamara; Judith Fitch; Louise Thomson; Gerry Richardson; Amar Rangan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Evelien M Sandberg; Wouter J K Hehenkamp; Peggy M Geomini; Petra F Janssen; Frank Willem Jansen; Andries R H Twijnstra Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Esther Va Bouwsma; Johannes R Anema; Antonie Vonk Noordegraaf; Dirk L Knol; Judith E Bosmans; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Paul Jm van Kesteren; W Marchien van Baal; Jos P Lips; Mark H Emanuel; Petrus C Scholten; Alexander Mozes; Albert H Adriaanse; Hans Am Brölmann; Judith Af Huirne Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2014-06-18
Authors: Eva van der Meij; Johannes R Anema; René H J Otten; Judith A F Huirne; Frederieke G Schaafsma Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daphne C R van Vliet; Eva van der Meij; Esther V A Bouwsma; Antonie Vonk Noordegraaf; Baukje van den Heuvel; Wilhelmus J H J Meijerink; W Marchien van Baal; Judith A F Huirne; Johannes R Anema Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Esther V A Bouwsma; Johannes R Anema; A Vonk Noordegraaf; Henrica C W de Vet; Judith A F Huirne Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 2.102