Background and aim Self-management support is an integral part of current chronic care guidelines. The success of self-management interventions varies between individual patients, suggesting a need for tailored self-management support. Understanding the role of patient factors in the current decision making of health professionals can support future tailoring of self-management interventions. The aim of this study is to identify the relative importance of patient factors in health professionals’ decision making regarding self-management support. Method A factorial survey was presented to primary care physicians and nurses. The survey consisted of clinical vignettes (case descriptions), in which 11 patient factors were systematically varied. Each care provider received a set of 12 vignettes. For each vignette, they decided whether they would give this patient self-management support and whether they expected this support to be successful. The associations between respondent decisions and patient factors were explored using ordered logit regression. Results The survey was completed by 60 general practitioners and 80 nurses. Self-management support was unlikely to be provided in a third of the vignettes. The most important patient factor in the decision to provide self-management support as well as in the expectation that self-management support would be successful was motivation, followed by patient-provider relationship and illness perception. Other factors, such as depression or anxiety, education level, self-efficacy and social support, had a small impact on decisions. Disease, disease severity, knowledge of disease, and age were relatively unimportant factors. Conclusion This is the first study to explore the relative importance of patient factors in decision making and the expectations regarding the provision of self-management support to chronic disease patients. By far, the most important factor considered was patient’s motivation; unmotivated patients were less likely to receive self-management support. Future tailored interventions should incorporate strategies to enhance motivation in unmotivated patients. Furthermore, care providers should be better equipped to promote motivational change in their patients.
Het lectoraat wil de rol en de bijdrage van technologie aan zorg in onze ouder wordende samenleving onderzoeken vanuit een persoonsgerichte visie. Met de titel Technologie, onze zorg geef ik uitdrukking aan mijn relationele mensbeeld binnen de zorgpraktijk. Hierin wordt houdbare zorg gecreëerd door een combinatie van zelfzorg, mantelzorg, zorg door vrijwilligers én professionele zorg. Persoonsgerichtheid is essentieel om recht te doen aan eenieder die hierin is betrokken. Technologie biedt kansen om in deze ‘samenzorg’ een bemiddelende rol te spelen. Voorbeelden zijn surveillance-, zelfredzaamheidsondersteunende-, belevingsgerichte-, informatie- en communicatietechnologie. De implementatie van deze vormen van technologie vraagt om een aanpak op verschillende niveaus: Micro-niveau: het betekent voor het primaire proces, daar waar zorgvraag en zorgaanbod elkaar ontmoeten, dat we denken en handelen vanuit wederzijds respect en gedeelde besluitvorming; Meso-niveau: via regionale samenwerking tussen zorg-, onderwijs- en onderzoeksorganisatie en bedrijfsleven kunnen we ván en mét elkaar leren; Macro-niveau: overheidsbeleid kan randvoorwaarden scheppen om een persoonsgerichte benadering van technologie in samenzorg te stimuleren.
MULTIFILE
BackgroundTo improve transmural palliative care for older adults acutely admitted to hospital, the PalliSupport intervention, comprising an educational programme and transmural palliative care pathway, was developed. This care pathway involves timely identification of palliative care needs, advance care planning, multidisciplinary team meetings, warm handover, and follow-up home visits. With this study, we evaluate changes in patient-related outcomes and transmural collaboration after implementation of the care pathway.MethodsWe conducted a before-after study, in which we compared 1) unplanned hospital admission and death at place of preference and 2) transmural collaboration before implementation, up to six months, and six to 18 months after implementation. Data from palliative care team consultations were collected between February 2017 and February 2020 in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands.ResultsThe palliative care team held 711 first-time consultations. The number of consultation, as well as the number of consultations for patients with non-malignant diseases, and consultations for advance care planning increased after implementation. The implementation of the pathway had no statistically significant effect on unplanned hospitalization but associated positively with death at place of preference more than six months after implementation (during/shortly after adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.84–5.35; p-value: 0.11, long term after adjusted OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.49–6.62; p-value: 0.003). Effects on transmural collaboration showed that there were more warm handovers during/shortly after implementation, but not on long term. Primary care professionals attended multidisciplinary team meetings more often during and shortly after implementation, but did not more than six months after implementation.ConclusionsThe pathway did not affect unplanned hospital admissions, but more patients died at their place of preference after implementation. Implementation of the pathway increased attention to- and awareness for in-hospital palliative care, but did not improve transmural collaboration on long-term. For some patients, the hospital admissions might helped in facilitating death at place of preference.
MULTIFILE
