BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dietetic interventions contribute to certain health objectives and other outcomes, but are mostly part of a multimodal and multidisciplinary approach what makes evaluating the actual effects of dietitians' involvement rather complex. Although monitoring and outcome evaluation (M&OE) can provide routine data to prove the effectiveness of dietetic interventions, this has not been established yet in different dietetic settings.METHODS: A comprehensive framework for M&OE in dietetics was developed by dietetic experts from five European higher education institutes for dietetics in the course of the EU sponsored project "Improvement of Education and Competences in Dietetics (IMPECD)".RESULTS: Firstly, clear definitions on M&OE are proposed to facilitate the use of consistent terminology, with a specific emphasis on the term "impact" covering macro-level outcomes such as cost-effectiveness. Secondly, the Dietetic Care Process (DCP) was merged into a logic model to demonstrate the position of M&OE in relation to intervention planning and implementation, in both group and individual settings. Thirdly, selecting the appropriate indicators is indispensable to monitor and evaluate outcomes, and requires a high level of dietitians' critical reasoning. A categorized overview of indicators is provided to support this process. Lastly, the consortium developed a checklist to give dietitians a handle on what elements could be included in their M&OE plan and trigger them to perform M&OE in practice.CONCLUSIONS: Innovative M&OE models may help dietitians to demonstrate their effectiveness in improving clinical outcomes and justify their role in health care.
DOCUMENT
Across all health care settings, certain patients are perceived as ‘difficult’ by clinicians. This paper’s aim is to understand how certain patients come to be perceived and labelled as ‘difficult’ patients in community mental health care, through mixed-methods research in The Netherlands between June 2006 and October 2009. A literature review, a Delphi-study among experts, a survey study among professionals, a Grounded Theory interview study among ‘difficult’ patients, and three case studies of ‘difficult’ patients were undertaken. Analysis of the results of these qualitative and quantitative studies took place within the concept of the sick role, and resulted in the construction of a tentative explanatory model. The ‘difficult’ patient-label is associated with professional pessimism, passive treatment and possible discharge or referral out of care. The label is given by professionals when certain patient characteristics are present and a specific causal attribution (psychological, social or moral versus neurobiological) about the patient’s behaviours is made. The status of ‘difficult’ patient is easily reinforced by subsequent patient and professional behaviour, turning initial unusual help-seeking behaviour into ‘difficult’ or ineffective chronic illness behaviour, and ineffective professional behaviour. These findings illustrate that the course of mental illness, or at least the course of patients’ contact with mental health professionals and services, is determined by patient and professional and reinforced by the social and mental health care system. This model adds to the broader sick role concept a micro-perspective in which attribution and learning principles are incorporated. On a practical level, it implies that professionals need to look into their own role in the perpetuation of difficult behaviours as described here.
DOCUMENT
Background: The present study investigates the suitability of various treatment outcome indicators to evaluate performance of mental health institutions that provide care to patients with severe mental illness. Several categorical approaches are compared to a reference indicator (continuous outcome) using pretest-posttest data of the Health of Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Methods: Data from 10 institutions and 3189 patients were used, comprising outcomes of the first year of treatment by teams providing long-term care. Results: Findings revealed differences between continuous indicators (standardized pre-post difference score ES and ΔT) and categorical indicators (SEM, JTRCI, JTCS, JTRCI&CS, JTrevised) on their ranking of institutions, as well as substantial differences among categorical indicators; the outcome according to the traditional JT approach was most concordant with the continuous outcome indicators. Conclusions: For research comparing group averages, a continuous outcome indicator such as ES or ΔT is preferred, as this best preserves information from the original variable. Categorical outcomes can be used to illustrate what is accomplished in clinical terms. For categorical outcome, the classical Jacobson-Truax approach is preferred over the more complex method of Parabiaghi et al. with eight outcome categories. The latter may be valuable in clinical practice as it allows for a more detailed characterization of individual patients.
DOCUMENT
Background: Clinicians are currently challenged to support older adults to maintain a certain level of Functional Independence (FI). FI is defined as "functioning physically safely and independent from another person, within one's own context". A Core Outcome Set was developed to measure FI. The purpose of this study was to assess discriminative validity of the Core Outcome Set FI (COSFI) in a population of Dutch older adults (≥ 65 years) with different levels of FI. Secondary objective was to assess to what extent the underlying domains 'coping', 'empowerment' and 'health literacy' contribute to the COSFI in addition to the domain 'physical capacity'. Methods: A population of 200 community-dwelling older adults and older adults living in residential care facilities were evaluated by the COSFI. The COSFI contains measurements on the four domains of FI: physical capacity, coping, empowerment and health literacy. In line with the COSMIN Study Design checklist for Patient-reported outcome measurement instruments, predefined hypotheses regarding prediction accuracy and differences between three subgroups of FI were tested. Testing included ordinal logistic regression analysis, with main outcome prediction accuracy of the COSFI on a proxy indicator for FI. Results: Overall, the prediction accuracy of the COSFI was 68%. For older adults living at home and depending on help in (i)ADL, prediction accuracy was 58%. 60% of the preset hypotheses were confirmed. Only physical capacity measured with Short Physical Performance Battery was significantly associated with group membership. Adding health literacy with coping or empowerment to a model with physical capacity improved the model significantly (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The current composition of the COSFI, did not yet meet the COSMIN criteria for discriminative validity. However, with some adjustments, the COSFI potentially becomes a valuable instrument for clinical practice. Context-related factors, like the presence of a spouse, also may be a determining factor in this population. It is recommended to include context-related factors in further research on determining FI in subgroups of older people.
DOCUMENT
Background: Accurate measurement of health literacy is essential to improve accessibility and effectiveness of health care and prevention. One measure frequently applied in international research is the Short Assessment of Health Literacy (SAHL). While the Dutch SAHL (SAHL-D) has proven to be valid and reliable, its administration is time consuming and burdensome for participants. Our aim was to further validate, strengthen and shorten the SAHL-D using Rasch analysis. Methods: Available cross-sectional SAHL-D data was used from adult samples (N = 1231) to assess unidimensionality, local independence, item fit, person fit, item hierarchy, scale targeting, precision (person reliability and person separation), and presence of differential item functioning (DIF) depending on age, gender, education and study sample. Results: Thirteen items for a short form were selected based on item fit and DIF, and scale properties were compared between the two forms. The long form had several items with DIF for age, gender, educational level and study sample. Both forms showed lower measurement precision at higher health literacy levels. Conclusions: The findings support the validity and reliability of the SAHL-D for the long form and the short form, which can be used for a rapid assessment of health literacy in research and clinical practice.
DOCUMENT
Aim: To evaluate healthcare professionals' performance and treatment fidelity in the Cardiac Care Bridge (CCB) nurse-coordinated transitional care intervention in older cardiac patients to understand and interpret the study results. Design: A mixed-methods process evaluation based on the Medical Research Council Process Evaluation framework. Methods: Quantitative data on intervention key elements were collected from 153 logbooks of all intervention patients. Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 19 CCB professionals (cardiac nurses, community nurses and primary care physical therapists), from June 2017 until October 2018. Qualitative data-analysis is based on thematic analysis and integrated with quantitative key element outcomes. The analysis was blinded to trial outcomes. Fidelity was defined as the level of intervention adherence. Results: The overall intervention fidelity was 67%, ranging from severely low fidelity in the consultation of in-hospital geriatric teams (17%) to maximum fidelity in the comprehensive geriatric assessment (100%). Main themes of influence in the intervention performance that emerged from the interviews are interdisciplinary collaboration, organizational preconditions, confidence in the programme, time management and patient characteristics. In addition to practical issues, the patient's frailty status and limited motivation were barriers to the intervention. Conclusion: Although involved healthcare professionals expressed their confidence in the intervention, the fidelity rate was suboptimal. This could have influenced the non-significant effect of the CCB intervention on the primary composite outcome of readmission and mortality 6 months after randomization. Feasibility of intervention key elements should be reconsidered in relation to experienced barriers and the population. Impact: In addition to insight in effectiveness, insight in intervention fidelity and performance is necessary to understand the mechanism of impact. This study demonstrates that the suboptimal fidelity was subject to a complex interplay of organizational, professionals' and patients' issues. The results support intervention redesign and inform future development of transitional care interventions in older cardiac patients.
DOCUMENT
This review of meta-analyses of outcome studies of adults receiving Computer-Based Health Education (CBHE) has two goals. The first is to provide an overview of the efficacy of CBHE interventions, and the second is to identify moderators of these effects. A systematic literature search resulted in 15 meta-analyses of 278 controlled outcome studies. The meta-analyses were analysed with regard to reported (overall) effect sizes, heterogeneity and interaction effects. The results indicate a positive relationship between CBHE interventions and improvements in health-related outcomes, with small overall effect sizes compared to non-computer-based interventions. The sustainability of the effects was observed for up to six months. Outcome moderators (31 variables) were studied in 12 meta-analyses and were clustered into three categories: intervention features (20 variables), participant characteristics (five variables) and study features (six variables). No relationship with effectiveness was found for four intervention features, theoretical background, use of internet and e-mail, intervention setting and self-monitoring; two participant features, age and gender; and one study feature, the type of analysis. Regarding the other 24 identified features, no consistent results were observed across meta-analyses. To enhance the effectiveness of CBHE interventions, moderators of effects should be studied as single constructs in high-quality study designs. http://www.journalofinterdisciplinarysciences.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/leontienvreeburg/
DOCUMENT
Introduction The Integrated Recovery Scales (IRS) was developed by the Dutch National Expertise board for routine outcome monitoring with severe mental illnesses. This board aimed to develop a multidimensional recovery measure directed at 1. clinical recovery, 2. physical health, 3. social recovery (work, social contacts, independent living) and 4. existential, personal recovery. The measure had to be short, suited for routine outcome monitoring and present the perspective of both mental health professionals and service users with severe mental illnesses. All aspects are assessed over a period of the pas 6 months. Objectives The objective of this research is validation of the Integral Recovery Scales and to test the revelance for clinical practice and police evaluation. Methods The instrument was tested with 500 individuals with severe mental illnesses (80% individuals with a psychotic disorder), of whom 200 were followed up for 1 year. For the questions concerning clinical recovery, physical health and social recovery mental health care workers conducted semi structured interviews with people living with serious illnesses. The questions concerning personal health were self-rated. We analyzed interrater reliability, convergent and divergent validity and sensitivity to change. Results The instrument has a good validity and is easy to complete for service users and mental health care workers and appropriate for clinical and policy evaluation goals. Conclusions The Integrated Recovery Scales can be a useful instrument for a simple and meaningful routine outcome monitoring. Page: 121
DOCUMENT
Background: The use of patient-reported outcomes to improve burn care increases. Little is known on burn patients’ views on what outcomes are most important, and about preferences regarding online Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Therefore, this study assessed what outcomes matter most to patients, and gained insights into patient preferences towards the use of online PROMs. Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years old), 3–36 months after injury completed a survey measuring importance of outcomes, separately for three time periods: during admission, short-term (< 6 months) and long-term (6–24 months) after burn injury. Both open and closed-ended questions were used. Furthermore, preferences regarding the use of patient-reported outcome measures in burn care were queried. Results: A total of 140 patients were included (response rate: 27%). ‘Not having pain’ and ‘good wound healing’ were identified as very important outcomes. Also, ‘physical functioning at pre-injury level’, ‘being independent’ and ‘taking care of yourself’ were considered very important outcomes. The top-ten of most important outcomes largely overlapped in all three time periods. Most patients (84%) had no problems with online questionnaires, and many (67%) indicated that it should take up to 15 minutes. Patients’ opinions differed widely on the preferred frequency of follow-up. Conclusions: Not having pain and good wound healing were considered very important during the whole recovery of burns; in addition, physical functioning at pre-injury level, being independent, and taking care of yourself were deemed very important in the short and long-term. These outcomes are recommended to be used in burn care and research, although careful selection of outcomes remains crucial as patients prefer online questionnaires up to 15 minutes.
DOCUMENT
Introduction F-ACT is a flexible version of Assertive Community Treatment to deliver care in a changing intensity depending on needs of individuals with severe mental illnesses (Van Veldhuizen, 2007). In 2016 a number of the FACT-teams in the Dutch region of Utrecht moved to locations in neighborhoods and started to work as one network team together with neighborhood based facilities in primary care (GP’s) and in the social domain (supported living, social district teams, etc.). This should create better chances on clinical, social and personal recovery of service users. Objectives This study describes the implementation, obstacles and outcomes for service users. The main question is whether this Collaborative Mental Health Care in the Community produces better outcome than regular FACT. Measures include (met/unmet) needs for care, quality of life, clinical, functional and personal recovery, and hospital admission days. Methods Data on care utilization regarding the innovation are compared to regular FACT. Qualitative interviews are conducted to gain insight in the experiences of service users, their family members and mental health care workers. Changes in outcome measures of service users in pilot areas (N=400) were compared to outcomes of users (matched on gender and level of functioning) in regular FACT teams in the period 2015-2018 (total N=800). Results Data-analyses will take place from January to March 2019. Initial analyses point at a greater feeling of holding and safety for service users in the pilot areas and less hospital admission days. Conclusions Preliminary results support the development from FACT to a community based collaborative care service.
DOCUMENT
