Maarten van Egmond

97 The effectiveness of physiotherapy with telerehabilitation 5 Outcomes Results a Conclusion Control Primary Secondary Standard care QoL Not specified Change in Baseline to 6 weeks · State anxiety: -4.53 (SD 1.82), P = .01 · Fear: -2.59 (SD 1.05), P = .02 · Physical self-efficacy: 2.39 (SD 1.07), P = .03 · General physical com- plaints: -1.27 (0.52), P = .02 The intervention improved some com- ponents of QoL more quickly than standard care, although they ultimately reached the same level of improve- ment Telephone contact only · Mood state (POMS) · Cancer related worry · Relationships · Loneliness · Symptom expe- rience Not specified No statistically significant differences in outcomes were found at the end of any phase of the study The mailed education- al resource kit alone appeared to be as effective as the tele- phone social support in conjunction with the mailed resource kit Participation in all study as- sessments but no intervention contacts · QoL (FACT-B+4) · Fatigue (FACIT) · Anxiety (STAI) · Function (DASH) Patient satisfaction Change in baseline to 6 months: · QoL: 1.5 (95% CI −3.6 to 6.6), P = .549 · Fatigue: 2.0 (95% CI −1.4 to 5.3), P = .233 · Anxiety: −0.3 (95% CU −5.2 to 4.6), P = .891 · Function: −0.21 (95% CI −3.7 to 3.3), P = .902 Results provide strong support for feasibility and modest support for efficacy of tele- phone-based interven- tions Educational brochures · Physical activi- ties · QoL (SF36) · Cancer-related fatigue · Weight man- agement · Dietary intake Change in baseline to 6 months: · MVPA: 11.5 (95% CI -18.8 to 41.9), P = .457 · Physical component summary: 0.0 (95% CI -1.8 to 1.8), P = .991 · Mental component summary: 0.7 (95% CI -1.1 to 2.5), P = .455 Telephone-delivered interventions are fea- sible and can improve some important health outcomes compared with usual care