Purpose: To describe nurses' support interventions for medication adherence, and patients' experiences and desired improvements with this care. Patients and methods: A two-phase study was performed, including an analysis of questionnaire data and conducted interviews with members of the care panel of the Netherlands Patients Federation. The questionnaire assessed 14 types of interventions, satisfaction (score 0-10) with received interventions, needs, experiences, and desired improvements in nurses' support. Interviews further explored experiences and improvements. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a thematic analysis approach. Results: Fifty-nine participants completed the questionnaire, and 14 of the 59 participants were interviewed. The satisfaction score for interventions was 7.9 (IQR 7-9). The most common interventions were: "noticing when I don't take medication as prescribed" (n = 35), "helping me to find solutions to overcome problems with using medications" (n = 32), "helping me with taking medication" (n = 32), and "explaining the importance of taking medication at the right moment" (n = 32). Fifteen participants missed ≥1 of the 14 interventions. Most mentioned the following: "regularly asking about potential problems with medication use" (33%), "regularly discussing whether using medication is going well" (29%), and "explaining the importance of taking medication at the right moment" (27%). Twenty-two participants experienced the following as positive: improved self-management of adequate medication taking, a professional patient-nurse relationship to discuss adherence problems, and nurses' proactive attitude to arrange practical support for medication use. Thirteen patients experienced the following as negative: insufficient timing of home visits, rushed appearance of nurses, and insufficient expertise about side effects and taking medication. Suggested improvements included performing home visits on time, more time for providing support in medication use, and more expertise about side effects and administering medication. Conclusion: Overall, participants were satisfied, and few participants wanted more interventions. Nurses' support improved participants' self-management of medication taking and enabled patients to discuss their adherence problems. Adequately timed home visits, more time for support, and accurate medication-related knowledge are desired.
Objective: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine the associations between frailty and multimorbidity on the one hand and quality of life on the other in community-dwelling older people. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all people aged 70 years and older belonging to a general practice in the Netherlands; 241 persons completed the questionnaire (response rate 47.5%). For determining multimorbidity, nine chronic diseases were examined by self-report. Frailty was assessed by the Tilburg Frailty Indicator, and quality of life was assessed by the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument—Older Adults Module. Results: Multimorbidity, physical, psychological, as well as social frailty components were negatively associated with quality of life. Multimorbidity and all 15 frailty components together explained 11.6% and 36.5% of the variance of the score on quality of life, respectively. Conclusion: Health care professionals should focus their interventions on the physical, psychological, and social domains of human functioning. Interprofessional cooperation between health care professionals and welfare professionals seems necessary to be able to meet the needs of frail older people.
Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being used extensively in the search for pathoanatomical factors contributing to low back pain (LBP) such as Modic changes (MC). However, it remains unclear whether clinical findings can identify patients with MC. The purpose of this explorative study was to assess the predictive value of six clinical tests and three questionnaires commonly used with patients with low-back pain (LBP) on the presence of Modic changes (MC).Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from Dutch military personnel in the period between April 2013 and July 2016. Questionnaires included the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. The clinical examination included (i) range of motion, (ii) presence of pain during flexion and extension, (iii) Prone Instability Test, and (iv) straight leg raise. Backward stepwise regression was used to estimate predictive value for the presence of MC and the type of MC. The exploration of clinical tests was performed by univariable logistic regression models.Results: Two hundred eighty-six patients were allocated for the study, and 112 cases with medical records and MRI scans were available; 60 cases with MC and 52 without MC. Age was significantly higher in the MC group. The univariate regression analysis showed a significantly increased odds ratio for pain during flexion movement (2.57 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-6.08]) in the group with MC. Multivariable logistic regression of all clinical symptoms and signs showed no significant association for any of the variables. The diagnostic value of the clinical tests expressed by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values showed, for all the combinations, a low area under the curve (AUC) score, ranging from 0.41 to 0.53. Single-test sensitivity was the highest for pain in flexion: 60% (95% CI: 48.3-70.4).Conclusion: No model to predict the presence of MC, based on clinical tests, could be demonstrated. It is therefore not likely that LBP patients with MC are very different from other LBP patients and that they form a specific subgroup. However, the study only explored a limited number of clinical findings and it is possible that larger samples allowing for more variables would conclude differently.
