AbstractThis study assessed the efficacy of a co-designed, school-based intervention meant to promote physical activityand fitness among Dutch prevocational secondary students. In a two-year clustered randomized controlled trial,students’ physical activity and fitness was measured by indirect and direct methods. In the intervention group,we used the triple-I procedure, a participatory action research method, to co-design the intervention together withthe students and schools. This procedure involved focus group discussions by interviewing and imagingtechniques, followed by a co-design process to align the intervention content and implementation processes withstudents’ preferences. The study involved 22 Dutch schools, with a total of 2685 13-to-14-year-old prevocationalsecondary students. Schools were randomly assigned to either intervention (11 schools, 1446 students) or controlgroup (11 schools, 1239 students).There were no significant intervention differences between students’ overallphysical activity behavior on intervention versus control schools. However, with regards to various specificphysical fitness indicators, such as the long jump, handgrip strength, shuttle run test, and the sum of skinfolds,intervention school students performed significantly better than the control group students. Furthermore, whentaking into account student participation, i.e. the success of the co-design process, schools with higher levels ofstudent participation showed higher shuttle run scores. However, such graded effects were not similarly apparentwith regards to students’ physical fitness indicators. This study showed that co-designing a comprehensivephysical activity intervention on numerous Dutch high schools via the Triple-I Interactive Method was feasible.Moreover, results showed that certain aspects of physical fitness were improved after two years of intervention,although taken together with the lack of effects on physical activity, results were mixed.
Aims and objectives: To examine the predictive properties of the brief Dutch National Safety Management Program for the screening of frail hospitalised older patients (VMS) and to compare these with the more extensive Maastricht Frailty Screening Tool for Hospitalised Patients (MFST-HP). Background: Screening of older patients during admission may help to detect frailty and underlying geriatric conditions. The VMS screening assesses patients on four domains (i.e. functional decline, delirium risk, fall risk and nutrition). The 15-item MFST-HP assesses patients on three domains of frailty (physical, social and psychological). Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Data of 2,573 hospitalised patients (70+) admitted in 2013 were included, and relative risks, sensitivity and specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve of the two tools were calculated for discharge destination, readmissions and mortality. The data were derived from the patients nursing files. A STARD checklist was completed. Results: Different proportions of frail patients were identified by means of both tools: 1,369 (53.2%) based on the VMS and 414 (16.1%) based on the MFST-HP. The specificity was low for the VMS, and the sensitivity was low for the MFST-HP. The overall AUC for the VMS varied from 0.50 to 0.76 and from 0.49 to 0.69 for the MFST-HP. Conclusion: The predictive properties of the VMS and the more extended MFST-HP on the screening of frailty among older hospitalised patients are poor to moderate and not very promising. Relevance to clinical practice: The VMS labels a high proportion of older patients as potentially frail, while the MFST-HP labels over 80% as nonfrail. An extended tool did not increase the predictive ability of the VMS. However, information derived from the individual items of the screening tools may help nurses in daily practice to intervene on potential geriatric risks such as delirium risk or fall risk.
Aims: Prescribing errors among junior doctors are common in clinical practice because many lack prescribing competence after graduation. This is in part due to inadequate education in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) in the undergraduate medical curriculum. To support CP&T education, it is important to determine which drugs medical undergraduates should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision by the time they graduate. Currently, there is no such list with broad-based consensus. Therefore, the aim was to reach consensus on a list of essential drugs for undergraduate medical education in the Netherlands. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi study was conducted among pharmacists, medical specialists, junior doctors and pharmacotherapy teachers from all eight Dutch academic hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate whether it was essential that medical graduates could prescribe specific drugs included on a preliminary list. Drugs for which ≥80% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed were included in the final list. Results: In all, 42 (65%) participants completed the two Delphi rounds. A total of 132 drugs (39%) from the preliminary list and two (3%) newly proposed drugs were included. Conclusions: This is the first Delphi consensus study to identify the drugs that Dutch junior doctors should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision. This list can be used to harmonize and support the teaching and assessment of CP&T. Moreover, this study shows that a Delphi method is suitable to reach consensus on such a list, and could be used for a European list.
MULTIFILE
