Background. The Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire has been developed to measure patients’ beliefs of necessity of and concerns about rehabilitation. Preliminary evidence suggests that these beliefs may be associated with attendance of rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire for interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation and to examine the measurement properties of the Dutch translation including the predictive validity for dropout. Methods. The questionnaire was translated in 4 steps: forward translation from English into Dutch, achieving consensus, back translation into English, and pretesting on providers and patients. In order to establish structural validity, internal consistency, construct validity, and predictive validity of the questionnaire, 188 participants referred to a rehabilitation centre for outpatient interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation completed the questionnaire at the baseline. Dropout was measured as the number of patients starting, but not completing the programme. For reproducibility, 51 participants were recruited at another rehabilitation centre to complete the questionnaire at the baseline and one week later. Results. We confirmed the structural validity of the Treatment beliefs Questionnaire in the Dutch translation with three subscales, necessity, concerns, and perceived barriers. internal consistency was acceptable with ordinal alphas ranging from 0.66–0.87. Reproducibility was acceptable with ICC2,1 agreement ranging from 0.67–0.81. Hypotheses testing confirmed construct validity, similar to the original questionnaire. Predictive validity showed the questionnaire was unable to predict dropouts. Conclusion. Cross-cultural translation was successfully completed, and the Dutch Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire demonstrates similar psychometric properties as the original English version.
Background. The Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire has been developed to measure patients’ beliefs of necessity of and concerns about rehabilitation. Preliminary evidence suggests that these beliefs may be associated with attendance of rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire for interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation and to examine the measurement properties of the Dutch translation including the predictive validity for dropout. Methods. The questionnaire was translated in 4 steps: forward translation from English into Dutch, achieving consensus, back translation into English, and pretesting on providers and patients. In order to establish structural validity, internal consistency, construct validity, and predictive validity of the questionnaire, 188 participants referred to a rehabilitation centre for outpatient interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation completed the questionnaire at the baseline. Dropout was measured as the number of patients starting, but not completing the programme. For reproducibility, 51 participants were recruited at another rehabilitation centre to complete the questionnaire at the baseline and one week later. Results. We confirmed the structural validity of the Treatment beliefs Questionnaire in the Dutch translation with three subscales, necessity, concerns, and perceived barriers. internal consistency was acceptable with ordinal alphas ranging from 0.66–0.87. Reproducibility was acceptable with ICC2,1 agreement ranging from 0.67–0.81. Hypotheses testing confirmed construct validity, similar to the original questionnaire. Predictive validity showed the questionnaire was unable to predict dropouts. Conclusion. Cross-cultural translation was successfully completed, and the Dutch Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire demonstrates similar psychometric properties as the original English version.
Physical inactivity has led to an increase in the prevalence of lifestyle-related chronic diseases on a global scale. There is a need for more awareness surrounding the preventive and curative role of a physically active lifestyle in healthcare. The prescription of physical activity in clinical care has been advocated worldwide through the ‘exercise is medicine’ (E=M) paradigm. However, E=M currently has no position in general routine hospital care, which is hypothesized to be due to attitudinal and practical barriers to implementation. This study aims to create an E=M tool to reduce practical barriers to enforcing E=M in hospital care. Firstly, this project will perform qualitative research to study the current implementation status of E=M in clinical care as well as its facilitators and barriers to implementation among clinicians and hospital managers. Secondly, an E=M tool towards application of active lifestyle interventions will be developed, based on a prediction model of individual determinants of physical activity behavior and local big data, which will result in a tailored advice for patients on motivation and physical activity. Thirdly, the feasibility of implementing the E=M-tool, as designed within this project, will be investigated with a process evaluation, conducting a pilot-study which will integrate the tool in routine care in at least four clinical departments in two Dutch hospitals. This project will give insight in the current implementation status of E=M and in factors that influence the actual E=M implementation. Secondly, an E=M tool will be designed providing a tailored E=M prescription for patients as part of clinical care. Thirdly, an implementation strategy will be developed for implementation of the E=M tool in clinical practice. This project envisages an extensive continuation of research on the implementation of E=M, supports the mutual decision making process of lifestyle referral of clinicians and will provide insights which can be used to assist in implementing physically active lifestyle prescription in the medical curriculum.
