Choosing the right rehabilitation setting after herniated disc surgery: Motives, motivations and expectations from the patients’ perspective

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate (1) motives, motivations and expectations regarding the choice for a specific rehabilitation setting after herniated disc surgery and (2) how rehabilitation-related motivations and expectations are associated with rehabilitation outcome (ability to work, health-related quality of life and satisfaction with rehabilitation) three months after disc surgery. METHODS: The longitudinal cohort study refers to 452 disc surgery patients participating in a subsequent rehabilitation. Baseline interviews took part during acute hospital stay (pre-rehabilitation), follow-up interviews three months later (post-rehabilitation). Binary logistic regression and multiple linear regression analyses were applied. RESULTS: (1) Motives, motivations and expectations: Inpatient rehabilitation (IPR) patients stated “less effort/stress” (40.9%), more “relaxation and recreation” (39.1%) and greater “intensity of care and treatment” (37.0%) regarding their setting preference, whereas outpatient rehabilitation (OPR) patients indicated “family reasons” (45.3%), the wish for “staying in familiar environment” (35.9%) as well as “job-related reasons” (11.7%) as most relevant. IPR patients showed significantly higher motivation/expectation scores regarding regeneration (p < .001), health (p < .05), coping (p < .001), retirement/job (p < .01), psychological burden (p < .05) and physical burden (p < .001) compared to OPR patients. (2) Associations with rehabilitation outcome: Besides other factors (e.g. age, gender and educational level) rehabilitation-related motivations/expectations were significantly associated with rehabilitation outcome measures. For example, patients with less motivations/expectations to achieve improvements regarding “physical burden” showed a better health-related quality of life (p < .01) three months after disc surgery. Less motivations/expectations to achieve improvements regarding “psychological burden” was linked to a better mental health status (p < .001) and a greater satisfaction with rehabilitation (OR = .806; p < .05). CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation-related motivations and expectations differed substantially between IPR and OPR patients before rehabilitation and were significantly associated with rehabilitation outcome. Taking motivational and expectation-related aspects into account may help to improve allocation procedures for different rehabilitation settings and may improve rehabilitation success.