Developing an evidence-based prehabilitation programme designed to improve functional outcomes after lumbar fusion surgery - A feasibility study using the Medical Research Council framework

2Citations
Citations of this article
61Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: A prehabilitation phase is suggested as the ideal way to prepare patients for optimal outcomes from surgery. Our aim was to describe the lessons we learned from developing PREPARE, an evidence-based prehabilitation programme based on a cognitive behavioural approach designed to improve functional outcomes after lumbar fusion surgery. Methods: We used the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework approach for developing and designing a complex intervention, specifically the two phases; ‘Development’ and ‘Feasibility and Piloting’. Various aspects of treatment fidelity were evaluated during the phase ‘Feasibility and Piloting’. As part of the feasibility element, a pilot Single Subject Research Design study was performed. Eleven patients awaiting lumbar fusion surgery participated in the study. We evaluated in particular the use and application of outcome measures. Results: Significant lessons were learned which we used to adjust the prehabilitation programme to better fit a surgical context. The original treatment manual was elaborated on, the outcome measures adjusted, and the content of the intervention altered. Finally, the PREPARE programme was published in the form of a study protocol. Conclusions: There are significant lessons to be learned from testing a study protocol before it is implemented in a large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lotzke, H., Gutke, A., den Hollander, M., Smeets, R., & Lundberg, M. (2020). Developing an evidence-based prehabilitation programme designed to improve functional outcomes after lumbar fusion surgery - A feasibility study using the Medical Research Council framework. European Journal of Physiotherapy, 22(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/21679169.2018.1553999

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free