Background: Patient involvement in interprofessional education (IPE) is a new approach in fostering person-centeredness and collaborative competencies in undergraduate students. We developed the Patient As a Person (PAP-)module to facilitate students in learning from experts by experience (EBEs) living with chronic conditions, in an interprofessional setting. This study aimed to explore the experiences of undergraduate students, EBEs and facilitators with the PAP-module and formulate recommendations on the design and organization of patient involvement in IPE. Methods: We collected data from students, EBEs and facilitators, through eight semi-structured focus group interviews and two individual interviews (N = 51). The interviews took place at Maastricht University, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Regional Training Center Leeuwenborgh. Conventional content analysis revealed key themes. Results: Students reported that learning from EBEs in an interprofessional setting yielded a more comprehensive approach and made them empathize with EBEs. Facilitators found it challenging to address multiple demands from students from different backgrounds and diverse EBEs. EBEs were motivated to improve the personcentredness of health care and welcomed a renewed sense of purpose. Conclusions: This study yielded six recommendations: (a) students from various disciplines visit an EBE to foster a comprehensive approach, (b) groups of at least two students visit EBEs, (c) students may need aftercare for which facilitators should be receptive, (d) EBEs need clear instruction on their roles, (e) multiple EBEs in one session create diversity in perspectives and (f) training programmes and peer-to-peer sessions for facilitators help them to interact with diverse students and EBEs.
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.
Purpose: This research aimed to explore factors associated with patient-reported breast and abdominal scar quality after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction (BR). Material and Methods: This study was designed as a descriptive cross-sectional survey in which women after DIEP flap BR were invited to complete an online survey on breast and abdominal scarring. The online survey was distributed in the Netherlands in several ways in order to reach a diverse population of women. Outcomes were assessed with the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS). Additional items were assessed with a numeric rating scale (NRS). Results: A total of 248 women completed the survey. There was a statistically significant worse POSAS scar appraisal for the abdominal scar compared with the breast scar. The vast majority of women reported high scores on at least one scar characteristic of their breast scar or ab- dominal scar. Overall, color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity scored higher than pain and itching. Women were only moderately positive about the size, noticeability, location, and the information provided regarding scarring. Conclusion: It is crucial to address the inevitability of scars in patient education before a DIEP flap BR, with a particular focus on the abdominal scar, as women experience abdominal scars significantly worse than their breast scars. Providing more information on the experience of other women and the expected appearance will contribute to having realistic expectations while allowing them to make well-informed decisions.
