Abstract Background: Many countries in Europe have implemented managed competition and patient choice during the last decade. With the introduction of managed competition, health insurers also became an important stakeholder. They purchase services on behalf of their customers and are allowed to contract healthcare providers selectively. It has, therefore, become increasingly important to take one's insurance into account when choosing a provider. There is little evidence that patients make active choices in the way that policymakers assume they do. This research aims to investigate, firstly, the role of patients in choosing a healthcare provider at the point of referral, then the role of the GP and, finally, the influence of the health insurer/insurance policies within this process. Methods: We videotaped a series of everyday consultations between Dutch GPs and their patients during 2015 and 2016. In 117 of these consultations, with 28 GPs, the patient was referred to another healthcare provider. These consultations were coded by three observers using an observation protocol which assessed the role of the patient, GP, and the influence of the health insurer during the referral. Results: Patients were divided into three groups: patients with little or no input, patients with some input, and those with a lot of input. Just over half of the patients (56%) seemed to have some, or a lot of, input into the choice of a healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP. In addition, in almost half of the consultations (47%), GPs inquired about their patients' preferences regarding a healthcare provider. Topics regarding the health insurance or insurance policy of a patient were rarely (14%) discussed at the point of referral. Conclusions: Just over half of the patients appear to have some, or a lot of, input into their choice of a healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP. However, the remainder of the patients had little or no input. If more patient choice continues to be an important aim for policy makers, patients should be encouraged to actively choose the healthcare provider who best fits their needs and preferences.
DOCUMENT
The main objective of this report is to analyse and inform about international labour mobility, particularly within Europe, from the perspective of the Dutch Health and Social Care Sector. The report starts by describing the introduction of a new care system in The Netherlands. The government does not participate directly in the actual provision of care. This is a task principally for private care suppliers. Furthermore, the legal position of the Health and Social Care professions, regulated through the Individual Health Care Professions Act, and questions like the international recognition of degrees and the evaluation of foreign diplomas are discussed. This is followed by a clarification of the Dutch education system, particularly, relating to the study of medicine, nursing education and social work education. Subsequently, some core data on the ageing Dutch population are presented. The grey pressure increases and this will have an impact on health spending, health support and the future labour market. Then what follows is a description of the development of employment in the Dutch Health and Social Care Sector, per branch as well as the professions that are engaged in it. The general picture, at this moment, is that the Health and Social Care labour market is reasonably in balance. This trend will continue in the near future; shortages are expected only in the long term. All research done on the subject indicates that international mobility of medical and social professionals is still low in the Netherlands. The question remains whether a more active recruitment policy would be a solution for the expected long term shortages. The report concludes with a look at recruitment policy and some of its developments at the global, national and local level.
DOCUMENT
Background Literature on self-management innovations has studied their characteristics and position in healthcare systems. However, less attention has been paid to factors that contribute to successful implementation. This paper aims to answer the question: which factors play a role in a successful implementation of self-management health innovations? Methods We conducted a narrative review of academic literature to explore factors related to successful implementation of self-management health innovations. We further investigated the factors in a qualitative multiple case study to analyse their role in implementation success. Data were collected from nine self-management health projects in the Netherlands. Results Nine factors were found in the literature that foster the implementation of self-management health innovations: 1) involvement of end-users, 2) involvement of local and business partners, 3) involvement of stakeholders within the larger system, 4) tailoring of the innovation, 5) utilisation of multiple disciplines, 6) feedback on effectiveness, 7) availability of a feasible business model, 8) adaption to organisational changes, and 9) anticipation of changes required in the healthcare system. In the case studies, on average six of these factors could be identified. Three projects achieved a successful implementation of a self-management health innovation, but only in one case were all factors present. Conclusions For successful implementation of self-management health innovation projects, the factors identified in the literature are neither necessary nor sufficient. Therefore, it might be insightful to study how successful implementation works instead of solely focusing on the factors that could be helpful in this process.
LINK
Background: Early childhood caries is considered one of the most prevalent diseases in childhood, affecting almost half of preschool-age children globally. In the Netherlands, approximately one-third of children aged 5 years already have dental caries, and dental care providers experience problems reaching out to these children. Objective: Within the proposed trial, we aim to test the hypothesis that, compared to children who receive usual care, children who receive the Toddler Oral Health Intervention as add-on care will have a reduced cumulative caries incidence and caries incidence density at the age of 48 months. Methods: This pragmatic, 2-arm, individually randomized controlled trial is being conducted in the Netherlands and has been approved by the Medical Ethics Research Board of University Medical Center Utrecht. Parents with children aged 6 to 12 months attending 1 of the 9 selected well-baby clinics are invited to participate. Only healthy children (ie, not requiring any form of specialized health care) with parents that have sufficient command of the Dutch language and have no plans to move outside the well-baby clinic region are eligible. Both groups receive conventional oral health education in well-baby clinics during regular well-baby clinic visits between the ages of 6 to 48 months. After concealed random allocation of interventions, the intervention group also receives the Toddler Oral Health Intervention from an oral health coach. The Toddler Oral Health Intervention combines behavioral interventions of proven effectiveness in caries prevention. Data are collected at baseline, at 24 months, and at 48 months. The primary study endpoint is cumulative caries incidence for children aged 48 months, and will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. For children aged 48 months, the balance between costs and effects of the Toddler Oral Health Intervention will be evaluated, and for children aged 24 months, the effects of the Toddler Oral Health Intervention on behavioral determinants, alongside cumulative caries incidence, will be compared. Results: The first parent-child dyads were enrolled in June 2017, and recruitment was finished in June 2019. We enrolled 402 parent-child dyads. Conclusions: All follow-up interventions and data collection will be completed by the end of 2022, and the trial results are expected soon thereafter. Results will be shared at international conferences and via peer-reviewed publication.
LINK
Background: In recent years, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions have increasingly been studied and show potential. Despite the potential of digital health services, their use in primary care is lagging. A thorough implementation is needed, including the development of implementation strategies that potentially improve the use of digital health services in primary care. The first step in designing implementation strategies that fit the local context is to gain insight into determinants that influence implementation for patients and health care professionals. Until now, no systematic overview has existed of barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting. Objective: This systematic literature review aims to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for eligible qualitative and mixed methods studies up to March 2024. Methodological quality of the qualitative component of the included studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A framework synthesis of barriers and facilitators to implementation was conducted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). All identified CFIR constructs were given a reliability rating (high, medium, or low) to assess the consistency of reporting across each construct. Results: Overall, 35 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Methodological quality was high in 34 studies and medium in 1 study. Barriers (–) of and facilitators (+) to implementation were identified in all 5 CFIR domains: “digital health characteristics” (ie, commercial neutral [+], privacy and safety [–], specificity [+], and good usability [+]), “outer setting” (ie, acceptance by stakeholders [+], lack of health care guidelines [–], and external financial incentives [–]), “inner setting” (ie, change of treatment routines [+ and –], information incongruence (–), and support from colleagues [+]), “characteristics of the healthcare professionals” (ie, health care professionals’ acceptance [+ and –] and job satisfaction [+ and –]), and the “implementation process” (involvement [+] and justification and delegation [–]). All identified constructs and subconstructs of the CFIR had a high reliability rating. Some identified determinants that influence implementation may be facilitators in certain cases, whereas in others, they may be barriers. Conclusions: Barriers and facilitators were identified across all 5 CFIR domains, suggesting that the implementation process can be complex and requires implementation strategies across all CFIR domains. Stakeholders, including digital health intervention developers, health care professionals, health care organizations, health policy makers, health care funders, and researchers, can consider the identified barriers and facilitators to design tailored implementation strategies after prioritization has been carried out in their local context
DOCUMENT
Background: Generally, a significant portion of healthcare spending consists of out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses. Patients indicate that, in practice, there are often some OOP expenses, incurred when they receive medical care, which are unexpected for them and should have been taken into account when deciding on a course of action. Patients are often reliant on their GP and may, therefore, expect their GP to provide them with information about the costs of treatment options, taking into consideration their individual insurance plan. This also applies to the Netherlands, where OOP expenses increased rapidly over the years. In the current study, we observed the degree to which matters around patients' insurance and OOP expenses are discussed in the Netherlands, using video recordings of consultations between patients and GPs. Methods: Video recordings were collected from patient-GP consultations in 2015-2016. In 2015, 20 GPs and 392 patients from the eastern part of the Netherlands participated. In 2016, another eight GPs and 102 patients participated, spread throughout the Netherlands. The consultations were coded by three observers using an observation protocol. We achieved an almost perfect inter-rater agreement (Kappa = .82). Results: In total, 475 consultations were analysed. In 9.5% of all the consultations, issues concerning patients' health insurance and OOP expenses were discussed. The reimbursement of the cost of medication was discussed most often and patients' current insurance and co-payments least often. In some consultations, the GP brought up the subject, while in others, the patient initiated the discussion. Conclusions: While GPs may often be in the position to provide patients with information about treatment alternatives, few patients discuss the financial effects of their referral or prescription with their GP. This result complies with existing literature. Policy makers, GPs and insurers should think about how GPs and patients can be facilitated when considering the OOP expenses of treatment. There are several factors why this study, analysing video recordings of routine GP consultations in the Netherlands, is particularly relevant: Dutch GPs play a gatekeeper function; OOP expenses have increased relatively swiftly; and patients have both the right to decide on their treatment, and to choose a provider.
DOCUMENT
Abstract from article: The Dutch healthcare system has changed towards a system of regulated competition to contain costs and to improve efficiency and quality of care. This paper provides: (1) a brief as-is overview of the changes for primary care, based on explorative literature reviews; (2) provides noteworthy remarks as for the way primary and secondary healthcare is organised; (3) an example of an E-health portal illustrating implemented processes within the Dutch context and (4) a proposed research agenda on various e-health topics. Noteworthy remarks are: (1) government, insurer, healthcare provider and patient are main actors within the Dutch healthcare system; (2) general practitioners (GP’s) are gatekeepers to secondary and other care providers; (3) the illustrated portal with a patient oriented design, provides access to applications implemented at care providers resulting in increased electronic availability and increased patient satisfaction; (4) a variety of fragmented information systems at health care providers exists, which leaves room for standardisation and increased efficiency. We end with suggestions for future research.
DOCUMENT
Existing methods for risk assessment for medical aids are being surpassed by the rapid rise and availability of apps, serious games and online e-health applications. There is a lack of transparency for end users (consumers, patients, care professionals and consultants, and health insurers) regarding the status, operation and effectiveness of these new tools. At the same time, existing filters for risk assessment of medical aids often lead to excessively strict validation requirements for these new tools, which inhibits their possible contribution to better and more affordable care for the patient. It also erects barriers to new entrepreneurial entrants to the care market and their innovative ideas. This all requires an improved system of risk analysis and validation of e-health applications. A vital condition for an improved system is the introduction of the shortest possible assessment period for this form of quality care, considering the tempo of technological developments in both technical platforms and the applications that run on them (critical time-to-market), so that products do not lose their value before they are released to the market.
DOCUMENT
The traditional paternalistic approach in health care is increasingly developing towards a patient-centered care (PCC) approach. However, not all patients are able to take advantage of the positive effects of PCC. Inadequate health literacy (HL) is an important limiting factor in the ability of patients to take on an active role and exchange information with their health care provider effectively. A provenly effective approach to improvement of provider-patient interaction and health outcomes is the use of health-related questionnaires. The aim of the research project described within this thesis was to adapt the most frequently-used questionnaire in Dutch physical therapy practice and add information and communication technology to it. A Dutch and Turkish version of the tool called Talking Touch Screen Questionnaire (TTSQ) was developed and evaluated on both usability and validity aspects. The current prototype of the tool does not yet fully solve the problems native and minority patients with low (health) literacy have with completing the adapted questionnaire. Big challenges in future development and testing the TTSQ are the recruitment of vulnerable members of the hard-to-reach native and minority target populations and finding research methods that suit the abilities and needs of these participants. This is expected to be a very challenging, labor- and time-consuming process. On the other hand, having a usable, valid and reliable TTSQ may well save a lot of time and money in both research and clinical practice in the future.
DOCUMENT
Background: Adequate self-management skills are of great importance for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to reduce the impact of COPD exacerbations. Using mobile health (mHealth) to support exacerbation-related self-management could be promising in engaging patients in their own health and changing health behaviors. However, there is limited knowledge on how to design mHealth interventions that are effective, meet the needs of end users, and are perceived as useful. By following an iterative user-centered design (UCD) process, an evidence-driven and usable mHealth intervention was developed to enhance exacerbation-related self-management in patients with COPD. Objective: This study aimed to describe in detail the full UCD and development process of an evidence-driven and usable mHealth intervention to enhance exacerbation-related self-management in patients with COPD. Methods: The UCD process consisted of four iterative phases: (1) background analysis and design conceptualization, (2) alpha usability testing, (3) iterative software development, and (4) field usability testing. Patients with COPD, health care providers, COPD experts, designers, software developers, and a behavioral scientist were involved throughout the design and development process. The intervention was developed using the behavior change wheel (BCW), a theoretically based approach for designing behavior change interventions, and logic modeling was used to map out the potential working mechanism of the intervention. Furthermore, the principles of design thinking were used for the creative design of the intervention. Qualitative and quantitative research methods were used throughout the design and development process. Results: The background analysis and design conceptualization phase resulted in final guiding principles for the intervention, a logic model to underpin the working mechanism of the intervention, and design requirements. Usability requirements were obtained from the usability testing phases. The iterative software development resulted in an evidence-driven and usable mHealth intervention—Copilot, a mobile app consisting of a symptom-monitoring module, and a personalized COPD action plan. Conclusions: By following a UCD process, an mHealth intervention was developed that meets the needs and preferences of patients with COPD, is likely to be used by patients with COPD, and has a high potential to be effective in reducing exacerbation impact. This extensive report of the intervention development process contributes to more transparency in the development of complex interventions in health care and can be used by researchers and designers as guidance for the development of future mHealth interventions.
DOCUMENT
