| Literature DB >> 25745509 |
Nathan Hutting1, Josephine A Engels2, J Bart Staal1, Yvonne F Heerkens2, Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many people suffer from complaints of the arm, neck and/or shoulder (CANS). The complaints are persistent and there is a need for intervention programs for those with longstanding CANS. Studies suggest that a behavioural change is needed in employees with CANS. A self-management program with an add-on eHealth module might be an effective option to achieve the behavioural change needed to manage the complaints in employees with CANS. The aim of this study was to determine the content and strategies of the intervention and to gain insight into possible barriers and facilitators for implementation. Therefore, we examined the views of experts on the problems and characteristics associated with employees with CANS as well as their opinion on a self-management program consisting of self-management sessions and an eHealth module.Entities:
Keywords: CANS; Complaints of the arm; Focus group; Neck and/or shoulder; Self-management; WRUED; Work-related upper extremity disorders
Year: 2015 PMID: 25745509 PMCID: PMC4349775 DOI: 10.1186/s12995-015-0051-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Occup Med Toxicol ISSN: 1745-6673 Impact factor: 2.646
Demographic profile of the participating experts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| 1 | Female | 60 | 1 | AHC | Psychology | Yes | Researcher | No | Yes | No |
| 2 | Female | 44 | 1 | HPE | Physiotherapy, occupational health physiotherapy | No | Physiotherapist | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3 | Male | 57 | 1 | AHC | Medicine | No | Occupational health physician | Yes | Yes | No |
| 4 | Female | 31 | 1 | AHC | Occupational therapy, health sciences | No | Occupational therapist, lecturer | Yes | No | No |
| 5 | Female | 50 | 1 | HPE | Work and Organization | No | Work and Organization expert | Yes | No | No |
| 6 | Female | 45 | 1 | HPE | Physiotherapy, occupational health physiotherapy | No | (Occupational health) physiotherapist | Yes | Yes | No |
| 7 | Female | 53 | 2 | HPE | Management | No | Health and Safety Coordinator | Yes | No | No |
| 8 | Female | 47 | 2 | AHC | Speech therapy, speech and language pathology | PhD.c | Researcher | No | Yes | Yes |
| 9 | Female | 30 | 2 | AHC | Psychology | PhD.c | Researcher | No | Yes | Yes |
| 10 | Male | 47 | 2 | AHC | Occupational therapy | PhD.c | Lecturer, researcher | Yes | Yes | No |
| 11 | Female | 47 | 2 | HPE | Occupational therapy | No | Occupational therapist | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 12 | Female | 42 | 3 | AHC | Health sciences | Yes | Researcher | Yes | No | Yes |
| 13 | Male | 33 | 3 | AHC | Movement sciences, epidemiology | Yes | Product manager eHealth | No | No | Yes |
| 14 | Male | 56 | 3 | AHC | Physiotherapy, occupational health physiotherapy | No | (Occupational health) physiotherapist | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 15 | Female | 42 | 3 | AHC | Health sciences | Yes | Researcher | No | Yes | Yes |
| 16 | Female | 58 | 3 | AHC | Sociology | Yes | Researcher, development | No | Yes | Yes |
| 17 | Male | 28 | 3 | AHC | Physiotherapy, health sciences | PhD.c | Researcher | Yes | No | Yes |
HPE = Higher professional education, AHC = Academic higher education, CANS = Complaints of arm, neck, and/or shoulder, SM = Self-management, EH = eHealth, PhD = Doctor of Philosophy, PhD.c = Doctor of Philosophy candidate.
Figure 1The I-Change model (2.0) [ 38 ].
Conditions and requirements concerning the design, layout and interactivity of the eHealth module
|
| The eHealth should be designed in such a way that people can work with it themselves and can search for possible solutions. It should be self-explanatory. |
| There must be a guiding line: for example, phases or themes. Some parts can be obligatory and other parts can be optional. | |
| The information should be short and concise. With the use of tabs: so that it is possible to distinguish between the main themes and to distinguish several levels. | |
| If possible, the eHealth should be designed as an independent program, so that in the implementation phase it can be used without the group meetings. In some sub-groups the eHealth itself may give sufficient support. | |
|
| The layout should be attractive. |
| Paying attention to apparently ‘smaller’ details is important: for example, the font that is used. What seems trivial may have considerable influence. | |
| Preferably use images, video and/or voice messages. | |
|
| There is some discussion as to whether the website should be interactive. On the one hand this makes the website more attractive, but eHealth then becomes more complicated - which is not desirable for this purpose. These considerations should be evaluated. |
| Implementing a diary feature is a possibility: | |
| But another expert stated: | |
| Therefore, use of the computer for additional features needs to be considered, in order to prevent more hours spent behind the computer. | |
| Experts have different opinions about adding a forum/community with participants and experts. A community with healthcare providers is frequently used nowadays, and an online consultation is also an option. However, a forum/community has the disadvantage that participants might ‘whine’ about their complaints. Moreover, participants can contact each other in the group meetings and with small groups it is difficult to have an active community online. |
Most important item as reported by the experts
|
| |
| Expert 1 |
|
| Expert 2 |
|
| Expert 3 |
|
| Expert 4 |
|
| Expert 5 |
|
|
| |
| Expert 6 |
|
| Expert 7 |
|
| Expert 8 |
|
| Expert 9 |
|
| Expert 10 |
|
| Expert 11 |
|
|
| |
| Expert 12 |
|
| Expert 13 |
|
| Expert 14 |
|
| Expert 15 |
|
| Expert 16 |
|
| Expert 17 |
|