Purpose: This study aimed to develop and pretest a systematic conversation approach for nurses to tailor aftercare to oncology patient's goals, unmet needs and wishes. Methods: We used an iterative developmental process for complex interventions: 1. Identifying problems 2. Identifying overall objectives 3. Designing the intervention 4. Pretesting and adapting the intervention. Results: The main results of the problem identification were: non-systematic and incomplete screening of potential issues, caveats in providing information, and shared decision-making. The overall objective formulated was: To develop a model for aftercare conversations based on shared goal-setting and decision-making. The conversation approach consists of four phases: 1. Preparation of the consultation including a questionnaire, 2. Shared goal-setting by means of a tool visualizing domains of life, and 3. Shared care planning by means of an overview of possible choices in aftercare, a database with health care professionals and a cancer survivorship care plan. 4. Evaluation. The results of the pretest revealed that the conversation approach needs to be flexible and tailored to the patient and practice setting, and embedded in the care processes. The conversation approach was perceived as enhancing patient-centeredness and leading to more in-depth consultations. Conclusion: The conversation approach was developed in co-creation with stakeholders. The results of the pretest revealed important implications and suggestions for implementation in routine care. The aftercare conversation approach can be used by nurses to provide tailored patient-centered evidence-based aftercare. Tailored aftercare should support oncology patient's goals, unmet needs and wishes. Further tailoring is needed.
The following paper presents a methodology we developed for addressing the case of a multi-modal network to be implemented in the future. The methodology is based on a simulation approach and presents some characteristics that make a challenge to be verified and validated. To overcome this limitation, we proposed a novel methodology that implies interaction with subjectmatter experts, revision of current data, collection and assessment of future performance and educated assumptions. With that methodology we could construct the complete passenger trajectory Door to door in Europe. The results indicate that the approach allows to approach infrastructure analysis at an early stage to have an initial estimation of the upper boundary of performance indicators. To exemplify this, we present the results for a case study in Europe.
Background: Although principles of the health promoting school (HPS) approach are followed worldwide, differences between countries in the implementation are reported. The aim of the current study was (1) to examine the implementation of the HPS approach in European countries in terms of different implementation indicators, that is, percentage of schools implementing the HPS approach, implementation of core components, and positioning on so‐called HPS‐related spectra, (2) to explore patterns of consistency between the implementation indicators across countries, and (3) to examine perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the HPS approach across countries. Methods: This study analyzed data from a survey that was part of the Schools for Health in Europe network's Monitoring Task 2020. The survey was completed by HPS representatives of 24 network member countries. Results: Large variations exist in (the influencing factors for) the implementation of the HPS approach in European countries. Observed patterns show that countries with higher percentages of schools implementing the HPS approach also score higher on the implementation of the core components and, in terms of spectra, more toward implementing multiple HPS core components, add‐in strategies, action‐oriented research and national‐level driven dissemination. In each country a unique mix of barriers and facilitators was observed. Conclusion: Countries committed to implementing the HPS approach in as many schools as possible also seem to pay attention to the quality of implementation. For a complete and accurate measurement of implementation, the use of multiple implementation indicators is desirable.