Background‘Treatment burden’, defined as both the workload and impact of treatment regimens on function and well-being, has been associated with poor adherence and unfavourable outcomes. Previous research focused on treatment workload but our understanding of treatment impact is limited. This research aimed to systematically review qualitative research to identify: 1) what are the treatment generated disruptions experienced by patients across all chronic conditions and treatments? 2) what strategies do patients employ to minimise these treatment generated disruptions?Methods and FindingsThe search strategy centred on: treatment burden and qualitative methods. Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and PsychINFO were searched electronically from inception to Dec 2013. No language limitations were set. Teams of two reviewers independently conducted paper screening, data extraction, and data analysis. Data were analysed using framework synthesis informed by Cumulative Complexity Model. Eleven papers reporting data from 294 patients, across a range of conditions, age groups and nationalities were included. Treatment burdens were experienced as a series of disruptions: biographical disruptions involved loss of freedom and independence, restriction of meaningful activities, negative emotions and stigma; relational disruptions included strained family and social relationships and feeling isolated; and, biological disruptions involved physical side-effects. Patients employed “adaptive treatment work” and “rationalised non-adherence” to minimise treatment disruptions. Rationalised non-adherence was sanctioned by health professionals at end of life; at other times it was a “secret-act” which generated feelings of guilt and impacted on family and clinical relationships.ConclusionsTreatments generate negative emotions and physical side effects, strain relationships and affect identity. Patients minimise these disruptions through additional adaptive work and/or by non-adherence. This affects physical outcomes and care relationships. There is a need for clinicians to engage with patients in honest conversations about treatment disruptions and the ‘adhere-ability’ of recommended regimens. Patient-centred practice requires management plans which optimise outcomes and minimise disruptions.

the need for the development and implementation of a Core Outcome Set has been reinforced. Ahead of the completion of the Core Outcome Set, researchers and clinicians are advised to measure the impact of physical activity interventions on these frequently reported outcome domains.

Background and Objectives A core outcome set (COS) to evaluate physical activity (PA) interventions for people living with dementia is needed, as the development of guidelines is currently limited by important heterogeneity in this field of research. Development of COS often includes Delphi surveys, but people living with dementia are often excluded. This study aimed to reach consensus on this COS using a modified Delphi survey to enable the participation of people living with dementia. Research Design and Methods Two stakeholders groups took part in a Delphi survey (Group 1: people living with dementia and family caregivers; Group 2: professionals from different backgrounds, including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and researchers). Caregivers and professionals completed the survey remotely. Participants living with dementia took part face-to-face, using a card sorting strategy. The consensus process was finalized with a consensus meeting. Results Ninety-five participants of both groups completed the modified Delphi. Of those, 11 attended the consensus meeting. The card sorting strategy was successful at including people living with dementia. Seven outcomes reached consensus: preventing falls; doing what you can do; staying healthy and fit; walking better, being able to stand up and climb stairs; feeling brighter; enjoying the moment; and, feeling useful and having a purpose. Discussion and Implications Robust and innovative methodological strategies were used to reach a consensus on a COS (what to measure) to evaluate PA for people living with dementia. Future work will focus on the selection of the most appropriate tools to measure these outcomes (how to measure).