Lifestyle management is the cornerstone of both primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and the importance of lifestyle management is emphasised by all major guidelines. Despite this, actual implementation of lifestyle management is poor. Lifestyle modification includes smoking cessation, weight loss, dietary change, increasing physical inactivity, and stress management. This review summarises evidence-based opportunities and challenges for healthcare professionals to promote healthy lifestyles at an individual level for the prevention of ASCVD.
AchtergrondIn Nederland wonen steeds meer zorgbehoeftige mensen thuis. Hieronder vallen mensen met het syndroom van Korsakov. Tot op heden mist een best-practice werkwijze voor goede zorg in de thuissituatie voor deze groep mensen.MethodeGedurende twee netwerkbijeenkomsten hebben zorgprofessionals, mantelzorgers en experts van het Korsakov Kenniscentrum ervaringen gedeeld met betrekking tot extramurale zorg voor mensen met het syndroom van Korsakov. Vervolgens is in de literatuur gezocht naar bruikbare handvatten voor goede extramurale zorg.ResultatenZorgverleners werkzaam in de intra- en extramurale zorg voor mensen met het syndroom van Korsakov voelen zich tekortschieten ten opzichte van mantelzorgers en cliënten, omdat onvoldoende specialistische extramurale zorg voor mensen met het syndroom van Korsakov beschikbaar is of ze onzekerheid ervaren wanneer het gaat om de handelwijze in de extramurale zorgverlening. Het gebrek aan handvatten maakt de spanningen in de extramurale zorgsituatie groot. Uit de literatuur blijkt dat de in de praktijk bestaande werkwijzen niet voldoende aansluiten bij de specialistische problematiek behorende bij het syndroom van Korsakov.ConclusieVervolgonderzoek is nodig dat gericht is op het ontwikkelen van werkwijzen in de extramurale zorg voor mensen met het syndroom van Korsakov. Hierbij dient het ontwikkelen van professionele steunstructuren in deze extramurale zorg centraal te staan.
MULTIFILE
31-05-2020Purpose: The etiology of pain in osteoarthritis (OA) is complex andmultifactorial. A growing number of studies suggest that modificationof pain-transmission in the peripheral and central nervous system,leading to sensitization, plays a role in OA pain. Sensitization seems tobe associated with neuropathic pain-like symptoms and assessment ofthese symptoms can help to identify patients who could benefit fromadditional treatment options. Several questionnaires are available todistinguish neuropathic from nociceptive pain symptoms. The modifiedpainDETECT questionnaire (mPDQ) is a self-reported questionnairedeveloped to discriminate between nociceptive- and possible/likelyneuropathic pain in knee OA patients. Recently the mPDQ was translatedinto Dutch and adjusted to also fit hip OA patients. The aim of thisstudy was to assess the validity of the mPDQ-NL in patients with hip orknee OA.Methods: Primary hip and knee OA patients were recruited from threeDutch hospitals. Based on previous research, confirmatory factor analysisfor two principal components was performed to assess structuralvalidity. Construct validity (both convergent and divergent) wasassessed using hypothesis testing. Predefined hypotheses were formulatedconcerning the correlation between the mPDQ-NL and theSelf-reported Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (SLANSS),subscales of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score/Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS/HOOS), VisualAnalogue Scale for pain (VAS pain), and subscales of the RAND-36health survey (RAND-36). According to the COSMIN criteria, constructvalidity of a questionnaire is sufficient if 75% of predefined hypothesesare met. Additionally, convergent validity was assessed with blunt PainPressure Thresholds (PPTs) in a subsample of participants. A reducedPPT is a somatosensory abnormality that is considered an indication ofsensitization in OA. Therefore it was expected that reduction of PPTswas associated with higher mPDQ scores.Results: 168 participants were included. PPT measurements wereperformed in a sample of 46 participants. Factor analysis confirmed twoprincipal components. The items that loaded on the first componentcould be described as “evoked neuropathic sensations”, the items thatloaded on the second component as “spontaneous neuropathic sensations”.However there were two items that substantially loaded on bothcomponents. The item regarding pain pattern did not load on anycomponent. Considering construct analysis, 80% of the predefinedhypotheses concerning the correlation between mPDQ and self-reportedquestionnaires were met. Considering the correlation with PPTmeasurements, 50% of the predefined hypotheses were met.Conclusions: The mPDQ-NL seems to adequately reflect neuropathicpain-like symptoms experienced by hip and knee OA patients. Concerningstructural validity, two determinative components seem to bepresent, in line with previous research. However, one particular itemregarding pain pattern might not reflect the construct of neuropathicpain-like symptoms in hip or knee OA. Therefore, when using the mPDQin hip or knee OA patients, it might be considered to skip this particularitem. Construct validity can be considered sufficient, with over 75% ofthe predefined hypotheses regarding correlation between the mPDQNLand other questionnaires were met. However, only 50% of the hypotheses concerning PPT measurements were met, probably due toheterogeneity and limited sample size of this subgroup. To ourknowledge, this study is the first to assess the structural validity of themPDQ knee and hip by using factor analysis and to assess constructvalidity using elaborate hypothesis testing as proposed by the COSMINguidelines.
