According to experts adapting an existing intervention, together with increased collaboration between organisations, will be effective in stimulating physical activity in the target population. This study provides requirements on an intervention to stimulate physical activity, and suggestions for the approach of the target population, finance, and responsibility. Implications for Rehabilitation There is no need for designing a new intervention, but need for adaptation of an existing intervention for stimulating physical activity in physically disabled people. An intervention to stimulate physical activity in physically disabled people should aim to change participants and environmental attitude towards physical activity, and to increase the visibility of potential activities. Methods for stimulating physical activity in physically disabled people could be the use of individual coaching, feedback, a trial period, and role models. Potential participants should be personally approached via a network of intermediate organisations and via marketing, and the social environment.

Background: People with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases report lower levels of physical activity and well-being than the general population, which potentially is exacerbated through the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explored the international literature on physical activity, sedentary behavior and well-being in adults with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases during the first wave of the pandemic. Method: In a rapid review, we included studies reporting on physical activity, sedentary behavior and/or well-being in adults with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases. Four databases (Pubmed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase) were searched for studies published until 30 September 2020. Results: We included twenty-nine studies involving eleven different types of disabilities or health conditions from twenty-one different countries. Twenty-six studies reported on physical activity, of which one reported an increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, four studies reported no difference, and twenty-one studies reported a decrease. Thirteen studies reported a decline in well-being. Only one study measured sedentary behavior, reporting an increase. Conclusion: Despite the variety in methods used, almost all studies reported negative impacts on physical activity and well-being in people with physical disabilities and/or chronic disease during the first wave of the pandemic. These findings highlight the importance of supporting this population, especially in times of crisis.

PurposeTo establish reference values for Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in a Dutch rehabilitation population, and to study effects of patient characteristics, diagnosis and physical activity on HRQoL in this population.MethodFormer rehabilitation patients (3169) were asked to fill in a questionnaire including the Dutch version of the RAND-36. Differences between our rehabilitation patients and Dutch reference values were analyzed (t-tests). Effects of patient characteristics, diagnosis and movement intensity on scores on the subscales of the RAND-36 were analyzed using block wise multiple regression analyses.ResultsIn total 1223 patients (39%) returned the questionnaire. HRQoL was significantly poorer in the rehabilitation patients compared to Dutch reference values on all subscales (p<0.001) except for health change (p = 0.197). Longer time between questionnaire and last treatment was associated with a smaller health change (p = 0.035). Higher age negatively affected physical functioning (p<0.001), social functioning (p = 0.004) and health change (p = 0.001). Diagnosis affected outcomes on all subscales except role limitations physical, and mental health (p ranged <0.001 to 0.643). Higher movement intensity was associated with better outcomes on all subscales except for mental health (p ranged <0.001 to 0.190).ConclusionsHRQoL is poorer in rehabilitation patients compared to Dutch reference values. Physical components of HRQoL are affected by diagnosis. In rehabilitation patients an association between movement intensity and HRQoL was found. For clinical purposes, results of this study can be used as reference values for HRQoL in a rehabilitation setting.

Purpose: This study aimed to explore factors that influence participants' perceptions of the therapeutic alliance with healthcare professionals; their participation in the alliance; and their commitment to treatment in a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation setting. Materials and methods: A qualitative research-design was used and 26 participants in a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program were interviewed in-depth. Results: Initially, participants reported to be satisfied with their healthcare professionals. After deeper reflection on the therapeutic alliance, several unspoken thoughts and feelings and relational ruptures emerged. Almost all participants mentioned a history of disappointing and fragmented healthcare, and they reported on how this affected their cognitions, perceptions, and beliefs about the current program. Participants felt insufficiently empowered to voice their concerns and regularly chose to avoid confrontation by not discussing their feelings. They felt a lack of ownership of their problems and did not experience the program as person-centered. Conclusions: Several factors were found that negatively influence the quality of therapeutic alliance (agreement on bond) and efficacy of the treatment plan (agreement on goals and tasks). To improve outcomes of pain rehabilitation, healthcare professionals should systematically take into account the perceptions and needs of participants, and focus more on personalized collaboration throughout the program offered. ä IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONDifferences in perceptions and experiences of pain, together with differences in beliefs about the causes of pain, negatively influence the therapeutic alliance. When participants and healthcare professionals operate from different paradigms, it is important that they negotiate these differences. From the perspective of participants, a clear-cut organization of healthcare that encourages collaboration is required. It is important to focus on personalized collaboration from the start and during treatment, and to recognize and discuss disagreement on diagnosis and treatment plans. During this collaboration, healthcare professionals should systematically take into account the perceptions and needs of the participants.

IntroductionPhysically disabled people are less physically active compared with healthy people. Existing physical activity (PA) interventions are limited in reach, since they are primarily rehabilitation or school based. The current study aims to develop a community-based intervention for stimulating PA in hard-to-reach physically disabled people.Methods and analysisTo systematically develop a PA-stimulating intervention, intervention mapping (six steps) was applied. PA level and health-related quality of life of patients after rehabilitation was determined using questionnaires (step 1). Qualitative research was performed to study professionals’ and physically disabled people’s ideas about intervention objectives, determinants and design (steps 2 and 3). Since experts expressed no need for a new intervention, the existing intervention ‘Activity coach’ was adapted to the specific target population. The adapted intervention ‘Activity coach+’ composes a network of intermediate organisations that refers participants to an activity coach, who coaches participants during 1 year. After a preintervention physical assessment by a physiotherapist, participants will be individually guided to existing organised or non-organised activities. An activity tracker will be used to monitor and stimulate PA in daily life (step 4). To support adoption and implementation, meetings between involved parties are organised (step 5). ‘Activity coach+’ is implemented in community in March 2017, and will be evaluated using a mixed-method analysis. Quantitative evaluation of intervention effects on PA, health and social participation takes place after 0, 2, 4, 6 and 12 months. The implementation process and experiences with the intervention will be determined using qualitative research (step 6).Ethics and disseminationInsights from this study will be used for dissemination and further development of the intervention. The Medical Ethical Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen confirmed that formal ethical approval was not required (METc 2016/630).Trial registration numberNTR6858.

BackgroundLittle is known of physical activity behaviour among adults with a disability and/or chronic disease during and up to 1 year post-rehabilitation. We aimed to explore (1) dose characteristics of physical activity behaviour among adults with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases during that period, and (2) the effects of personal characteristics and diagnosis on the development of physical activity over time.MethodsAdults with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases (N=1256), enrolled in the Rehabilitation, Sports and Active lifestyle study, were followed with questionnaires: 3–6 weeks before (T0) and 14 (T1), 33 (T2) and 52 (T3) weeks after discharge from rehabilitation. Physical activity was assessed with the adapted version of the Short Questionnaire to ASsess Health enhancing physical activity. Dose characteristics of physical activity were descriptively analysed. Multilevel regression models were performed to assess physical activity over time and the effect of personal and diagnosis characteristics on physical activity over time.ResultsMedian total physical activity ranged from 1545 (IQR: 853–2453) at T0 to 1710 (IQR: 960–2730) at T3 min/week. Household (495–600 min/week) and light-intensity (900–998 min/week) activities accrued the most minutes. Analyses showed a significant increase in total physical activity moderate-intensity to vigorous-intensity physical activity and work/commuting physical activity for all time points (T1–T3) compared with baseline (T0). Diagnosis, age, sex and body mass index had a significant effect on baseline total physical activity.ConclusionPhysical activity is highly diverse among adults with physical disabilities and/or chronic diseases. Understanding this diversity in physical activity can help improve physical activity promotion activities.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the reliability of the RAND 36-item Health survey as a measure of health-related quality of life in a general Dutch post-rehabilitation population. A total of 752 ex-rehabilitation patients were invited to complete the Dutch RAND 36-item health survey. After 2 weeks, the people who responded to the first questionnaire were asked to complete the same questionnaire again. Internal consistency of the questionnaire was expressed as Cronbach's α. Test-retest reliability was expressed as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and presented in Bland-Altman plots. Internal consistency was found acceptable for all subscales (n=276; Cronbach's α ranged from 0.81 to 0.95). Test-retest reliability was found acceptable for research and group comparisons for all subscales (n=184; ICC ranged from 0.71 to 0.88). Overall, test-retest reliability of the physical functioning (ICC=0.86), pain (ICC=0.87), and general health (ICC=0.88) subscale was relatively high, and that of health change (ICC=0.71) was relatively low. Reliability of the questionnaire did not notably differ between participants who indicated stable health and participants who indicated health change during the past weeks. In conclusion, the Dutch translation of the RAND 36-item health survey is reliable for research and group comparisons in a general post-rehabilitation population. However, the RAND 36-item health survey is not sufficiently reliable for individual comparisons within this population.

When equipment is available a Wingate protocol is advised for assessment of anaerobic capacity in rehabilitation. When equipment is not avail-able a 20-45 s sprint test is a good alternative. Future research should focus on standardized tests and protocols specific to different disability groups.