Abstract Aim: To gain insight into the relationship between self-management abilities (taking initiatives, investment behaviour, variety, multifunctionality, self-efficacy, positive frame of mind) and physical, psychological and social frailty. Design: A cross-sectional study. Methods: 145 community-dwelling older people receiving home-care completed a questionnaire on sociodemographic factors, the Self-Management-Ability-Scale and the Tilburg Frailty Indicator. After determining correlations, sequential multiple linear regression analyses were executed. Results: All self-management abilities are negatively associated with physical frailty; five (except multifunctionality) are negatively associated with psychological frailty. Variety in resources and positive frame of mind are negatively associated with social frailty. Sociodemographic characteristics, chronic diseases and self-management abilities together significantly explain participants’physical (34.9%), psychological (21.4%) and social (43.9%) frailty. After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and chronic diseases, the self-management abilities together significantly explain 11 per cent of psychological and 6.8 per cent of social frailty. Having a positive frame of mind significantly negatively influences social frailty.
DOCUMENT
Background: There is an increasing number of patients with a chronic illness demanding primary care services. This demands for effective self-management support, including collaborative goal setting. Despite the fact that primary care professionals seem to have difficulties implementing goal setting, little information is available about the factors influencing the complexity of this process in primary care. Objective: The aim of this study was to contribute to an understanding of the complexity of selfmanagement goal setting in primary care by exploring experts’ and primary care professionals’ experiences with self-management goal setting and viewpoints regarding influencing factors. Methods: A descriptive qualitative research methodology was adopted. Two focus groups and three individual interviews were conducted (total participants n = 17). Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: The findings were categorized into four main themes with subordinated subthemes. The themes focus around the complexity of setting non-medical goals and around professionals’ skills and attitudes to negotiate and decide about goals with patients. Furthermore, patients’ skills and attitudes for goal setting and the integration of goal setting in the time available were formulated as themes. Conclusions: Setting self-management goals in primary care, especially in family medicine, might require a shift from a medical perspective to a biopsychosocial perspective, with an increasing role set aside for the professional to coach the patient in expressing his self-management goals and to take responsibility for these goals.
DOCUMENT
Background: Self-management of exacerbations in COPD patients is important to reduce exacerbation impact. There is a need for more comprehensive and individualized interventions to improve exacerbation-related selfmanagement behavior. The use of mobile health (mHealth) could help to achieve a wide variety of behavioral goals. Understanding of patients and health care providers perspectives towards using mHealth in promoting selfmanagement will greatly enhance the development of solutions with optimal usability and feasibility. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore perceptions of COPD patients and their health care providers towards using mHealth for self-management of exacerbations. Methods: A qualitative study using focus group interviews with COPD patients (n = 13) and health care providers (HCPs) (n = 6) was performed to explore perceptions towards using mHealth to support exacerbation-related selfmanagement. Data were analyzed by a thematic analysis. Results: COPD patients and HCPs perceived mostly similar benefits and barriers of using mHealth for exacerbationrelated self-management. These perceived benefits and barriers seem to be important drivers in the willingness to use mHealth. Both patients and HCPs strengthen the need for a multi-component and tailored mHealth intervention that improves patients’ exacerbation-related self-management by determining their health status and providing adequate information, decision support and feedback on self-management behavior. Most importantly, patients and HCPs considered an mHealth intervention as support to improve self-management and emphasized that it should never replace patients’ own feelings nor undermine their own decisions. In addition, the intervention should be complementary to regular contact with HCPs, as personal contact with a HCP was considered to be very important. To optimize engagement with mHealth, patients should have a positive attitude toward using mHealth and an mHealth intervention should be attractive, rewarding and safe. Conclusions: This study provided insight into perceptions of COPD patients and their HCPs towards using mHealth for self-management of exacerbations. This study points out that future mHealth interventions should focus on developing self-management skills over time by providing adequate information, decision support and feedback on self-management behavior and that mHealth should complement regular care. To optimize engagement, mHealth interventions should be attractive, rewarding, safe and tailored to the patient needs.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: Self-managed institutional homeless programmes started as an alternative to regular shelters. Using institutional theory as a lens, we aim to explore the experiences of stakeholders with the institutional aspects of a self-managed programs.Method: The data we analysed (56 interviews, both open and semi-structured) were generated in a longitudinal participatory case-study into JES, a self-managed homeless shelter. In our analysis we went back and forth between our empirical data and theory, using a combination of systematic coding and interpretation. Participants were involved in all stages of the research.Results: Our analysis revealed similarities between JES and regular shelters, stemming from institutional similarities. Participants shared space and facilities with sixteen people, which caused an ongoing discussion on (enforcement of) rules. Participants loathed lack of private space. However, participants experienced freedom of choice over both their own life and management of JES and structures were experienced more fluid than in regular care. Somestructures also appeared stimulated self-management.Conclusion: Our analysis showed how an institutional context influences self-management and suggested opportunities for introducing freedom and fluidity in institutional care.
DOCUMENT
In the Netherlands, palliative care is provided by generalist healthcare professionals (HCPs) if possible and by palliative care specialists if necessary. However, it still needs to be clarifed what specialist expertise entails, what specialized care consists of, and which training or work experience is needed to become a palliative care special‑ist. In addition to generalists and specialists, ‘experts’ in palliative care are recognized within the nursing and medical professions, but it is unclear how these three roles relate. This study aims to explore how HCPs working in palliative care describe themselves in terms of generalist, specialist, and expert and how this self-description is related to their work experience and education. Methods A cross-sectional open online survey with both pre-structured and open-ended questions among HCPs who provide palliative care. Analyses were done using descriptive statistics and by deductive thematic coding of open-ended questions. Results Eight hundred ffty-four HCPs flled out the survey; 74% received additional training, and 79% had more than fve years of working experience in palliative care. Based on working experience, 17% describe themselves as a generalist, 34% as a specialist, and 44% as an expert. Almost three out of four HCPs attributed their level of expertise on both their education and their working experience. Self-described specialists/experts had more working experience in palliative care, often had additional training, attended to more patients with palliative care needs, and were more often physicians as compared to generalists. A deductive analysis of the open questions revealed the similarities and dis‑ tinctions between the roles of a specialist and an expert. Seventy-six percent of the respondents mentioned the impor‑tance of having both specialists and experts and wished more clarity about what defnes a specialist or an expert, how to become one, and when you need them. In practice, both roles were used interchangeably. Competencies for the specialist/expert role consist of consulting, leadership, and understanding the importance of collaboration. Conclusions Although the grounds on which HCPs describe themselves as generalist, specialist, or experts difer, HCPs who describe themselves as specialists or experts mostly do so based on both their post-graduate education and their work experience. HCPs fnd it important to have specialists and experts in palliative care in addition to gen‑eralists and indicate more clarity about (the requirements for) these three roles is needed.
DOCUMENT
Despite assumptions that wearable self-care technologies such as smart wristbands and smart watches help users to monitor and self-manage health in daily life, adherence rates are often quite low. In an effort to better understand what determines adherence to wearable self-care technologies, researchers have started to consider the extent to which a technology is perceived as being part of the user (i.e., technology embodiment) and the extent to which users feel they can influence reaching their health goals (i.e., empowerment). Although both concepts are assumed to determine adherence, few studies have empirically validated their influence. Furthermore, the relationships between technology embodiment, empowerment, and adherence to wearable self-care technology have also not been addressed. Drawing upon embodied theory and embodiment cognition theory, this research paper introduces and empirically validates ‘embodied empowerment’ as a predictor of adherence to wearable self-care technology. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling and multigroup analysis on a dataset of 317 wearable self-care technology users, we find empirical evidence of the validity of embodied empowerment as a determinant of adherence. We also discuss the implications for research and practice.
DOCUMENT
Bij patiënten met een chronische aandoening is zelfmanagement (het vermogen om gezondheidsproblemen te voorkomen, of als die toch optreden, om te gaan met de symptomen, behandeling en gevolgen daarvan) van groot belang.
LINK
Purpose: To support family caregivers of persons post-stroke adequately from the start and to develop self-management interventions, we aim to gain a better understanding of family caregivers experiences at the time of acute care and therefore achieve a better understanding of how they manage their new situation. Methods and Materials: We chose a qualitative descriptive methodology using individual semi-structured interviews with eleven family caregivers of persons post-stroke. We conducted interviews retrospectively, between 2 and 10 months post-stroke, and analysed transcripts using thematic analysis. Results: The themes (1) being in survival mode, (2) feeling supported by family and friends, (3) feeling left alone by the treatment team and (4) insisting on information emerged from the data. Conclusion: During acute care, many self-management skills are required from family caregivers but are just starting to be developed. This development can first be observed as co-management with the social network and is often combined with shared decision-making. Information-sharing, foundational for developing self-management, is essential for family caregivers and should be supported proactively by health professionals from the beginning. Further, from the start, health professionals should raise awareness about role changes and imbalances of activities among family caregivers to prevent negative influences on their health.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Patients' self-care behaviour is still suboptimal in many heart failure (HF) patients and underlying mechanisms on how to improve self-care need to be studied.AIMS: (1) To describe the trajectory of patients' self-care behaviour over 1 year, (2) to clarify the relationship between the trajectory of self-care and clinical outcomes, and (3) to identify factors related to changes in self-care behaviour.METHODS: In this secondary analysis of the COACH-2 study, 167 HF patients (mean age 73 years) were included. Self-care behaviour was assessed at baseline and after 12 months using the European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour scale. The threshold score of ⩾70 was used to define good self-care behaviour.RESULTS: Of all patients, 21% had persistent poor self-care behaviour, and 27% decreased from good to poor. Self-care improved from poor to good in 10%; 41% had a good self-care during both measurements. Patients who improved self-care had significantly higher perceived control than those with persistently good self-care at baseline. Patients who decreased their self-care had more all-cause hospitalisations (35%) and cardiovascular hospitalisations (26%) than patients with persistently good self-care (2.9%, p < 0.05). The prevalence of depression increased at 12 months in both patients having persistent poor self-care (0% to 21%) and decreasing self-care (4.4% to 22%, both p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: Perceived control is a positive factor to improve self-care, and a decrease in self-care is related to worse outcomes. Interventions to reduce psychological distress combined with self-care support could have a beneficial impact on patients decreasing or persistently poor self-care behaviour.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Self-management is considered a potential answer to the increasing demand for family medicine by people suffering from a chronic condition or multi-morbidity. A key element of self-management is goal setting. Goal setting is often defined as a moment of agreement between a professional and a patient. In the self-management literature, however, goal setting is regarded as a circular process. Still, it is unclear how professionals working in family medicine can put it into practice. This background paper aims to contribute to the understanding of goal setting within self-management and to identify elements that need further development for practical use. Debate: Four questions for debate emerge in this article: (1) What are self-management goals? (2) What is necessary to accomplish the process of goal setting within self-management? (3) How can professionals decide on the degree of support needed for goal setting within self-management? (4) How can patients set their goals and how can they be supported? Implications: Self-management goals can be set for different (life) domains. Using a holistic framework will help in creating an overview of patients’ goals that do not merely focus on medical issues. It is a challenge for professionals to coach their patients to think about and set their goals themselves. More insight in patients’ willingness and ability to set self-management goals is desirable. Moreover, as goal setting is a circular process, professionals need to be supported to go through this process with their patients.
DOCUMENT
