Summary Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the adoption and actual use of a digital dietary monitoring system (DDMS) and its impact on patient satisfaction with the provided hospital care, body weight changes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer planned for surgery. The DDMS enables patients and dietitians to monitor patients' nutritional intake and body weight during the preoperative period. Methods In this prospective observational study, the first 47 included patients received usual nutritional care, and were followed from diagnosis until surgery. After implementation of the DDMS 37 patients were followed, again from diagnosis until surgery. Main outcomes were actual use of the DDMS, by means of adoption and usage measures, overall patient satisfaction (EORTC-INPATSAT32), weight change and HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC-OG25). Outcomes were assessed immediately after diagnosis, and 6 and 12 weeks later. Results The system had an adoption rate of 64% and a usage rate of 78%. No significant effects on patient satisfaction were found at 12 weeks after diagnosis between the intervention and the usual care group. The implementation of the DDMS also had no significant effect on body weight and HRQoL over time. Conclusions Patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer planned for surgery were able to use the DDMS. However, no significant effects on patient satisfaction, body weight changes and HRQoL were observed. Further research should focus on the specific needs of patients regarding information and support to preoperatively optimize nutritional intake and nutritional status.
MULTIFILE
Background:Postoperative complications and readmissions to hospital are factors known to negatively influence the short- and long-term quality of life of patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Active family involvement in activities, such as fundamental care activities, has the potential to improve the quality of health care. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the relationship between active family involvement and outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal cancer after surgery.Objective:This protocol aims to evaluate the effect of a family involvement program (FIP) on unplanned readmissions of adult patients undergoing surgery for malignant gastrointestinal tumors. Furthermore, the study aims to evaluate the effect of the FIP on family caregiver (FC) burden and their well-being and the fidelity of the FIP.Methods:This cohort study will be conducted in 2 academic hospitals in the Netherlands. The FIP will be offered to adult patients and their FCs. Patients are scheduled for oncological gastrointestinal surgery and have an expected hospital stay of at least 5 days after surgery. FCs must be willing to participate in fundamental care activities during hospitalization and after discharge. Consenting patients and their families will choose to either participate in the FIP or be included in the usual care group. According to the power calculation, we will recruit 150 patients and families in the FIP group and 150 in the usual care group. The intervention group will receive the FIP that consists of information, shared goal setting, task-oriented training, participation in fundamental care, presence of FCs during ward rounds, and rooming-in for at least 8 hours a day. Patients in the comparison group will receive usual postoperative care. The primary outcome measure is the number of unplanned readmissions up to 30 days after surgery. Several secondary outcomes will be collected, that is, total number of complications (sensitive to fundamental care activities) at 30 and 90 days after surgery, emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions up to 30 and 90 days after surgery, hospital length of stay, patients’ quality of life, and the amount of home care needed after discharge. FC outcomes are caregiver burden and well-being up to 90 days after participating in the FIP. To evaluate fidelity, we will check whether the FIP is executed as intended. Univariable regression and multivariable regression analyses will be conducted.Results:The first participant was enrolled in April 2019. The follow-up period of the last participant ended in May 2022. The study was funded by an unrestricted grant of the University hospital in 2018. We aim to publish the results in 2023.Conclusions:This study will provide evidence on outcomes from a FIP and will provide health care professionals practical tools for family involvement in the oncological surgical care setting.
Background: Most studies on birth settings investigate the association between planned place of birth at the start of labor and birth outcomes and intervention rates. To optimize maternity care it also is important to pay attention to the entire process of pregnancy and childbirth. This study explores the association between the initial preferred place of birth and model of care, and the course of pregnancy and labor in low-risk nulliparous women in the Netherlands. Methods: As part of a Dutch prospective cohort study (2007–2011), we compared medical indications during pregnancy and birth outcomes of 576 women who initially preferred a home birth (n = 226), a midwife-led hospital birth (n = 168) or an obstetrician-led hospital birth (n = 182). Data were obtained by a questionnaire before 20 weeks of gestation and by medical records. Analyses were performed according to the initial preferred place of birth. Results: Low-risk nulliparous women who preferred a home birth with midwife-led care were less likely to be diagnosed with a medical indication during pregnancy compared to women who preferred a birth with obstetrician-led care (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.25-0.66). Preferring a birth with midwife-led care – both at home and in hospital - was associated with lower odds of induced labor (OR 0.51 95% CI 0.28-0.95 respectively OR 0.42 95% CI 0.21-0.85) and epidural analgesia (OR 0.32 95% CI 0.18-0.56 respectively OR 0.34 95% CI 0.19-0.62) compared to preferring a birth with obstetrician-led care. In addition, women who preferred a home birth were less likely to experience augmentation of labor (OR 0.54 95% CI 0.32-0.93) and narcotic analgesia (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.21-0.79) compared to women who preferred a birth with obstetrician-led care. We observed no significant association between preferred place of birth and mode of birth. Conclusions: Nulliparous women who initially preferred a home birth were less likely to be diagnosed with a medical indication during pregnancy. Women who initially preferred a birth with midwife-led care – both at home and in hospital – experienced lower rates of interventions during labor. Although some differences can be attributed to the model of care, we suggest that characteristics and attitudes of women themselves also play an important role.
MULTIFILE
