OBJECTIVES: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by its heterogeneity, with large differences in clinical characteristics between patients. Therefore, a stratified approach to exercise therapy, whereby patients are allocated to homogeneous subgroups and receive a stratified, subgroup-specific intervention, can be expected to optimize current clinical effects. Recently, we developed and pilot tested a model of stratified exercise therapy based on clinically relevant subgroups of knee OA patients that we previously identified. Based on the promising results, it is timely to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of stratified exercise therapy compared with usual, "nonstratified" exercise therapy.METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including economic and process evaluation, comparing stratified exercise therapy with usual care by physical therapists (PTs) in primary care, in a total of 408 patients with clinically diagnosed knee OA. Eligible physical therapy practices are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to provide the experimental (in 204 patients) or control intervention (in 204 patients), respectively. The experimental intervention is a model of stratified exercise therapy consisting of (a) a stratification algorithm that allocates patients to a "high muscle strength subgroup," "low muscle strength subgroup," or "obesity subgroup" and (b) subgroup-specific, protocolized exercise therapy (with an additional dietary intervention from a dietician for the obesity subgroup only). The control intervention will be usual best practice by PTs (i.e., nonstratified exercise therapy). Our primary outcome measures are knee pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscale daily living). Measurements will be performed at baseline, 3-month (primary endpoint), 6-month (questionnaires only), and 12-month follow-up, with an additional cost questionnaire at 9 months. Intention-to-treat, multilevel, regression analysis comparing stratified versus usual care will be performed.CONCLUSION: This study will demonstrate whether stratified care provided by primary care PTs is effective and cost-effective compared with usual best practice from PTs.
Combined lifestyle interventions (CLIs) are designed to reduce risk factors for lifestyle-related diseases through increasing physical activity and improvement of dietary behaviour. Objective. To evaluate the effects of a CLI for overweight and obese patients on lifestyle-related risk factors and health care consumption, in comparison to usual care. Methods. Data on anthropometric and metabolic measurements, morbidity, drugs prescriptions and general practitioner (GP) consultations were extracted from electronic health records (timeframe: July 2009–August 2013). Using a quasi-experimental design, health outcomes of 127 patients who participated in a 1-year CLI were compared to a group of 254 matched patients that received usual care. Baseline to post-intervention changes in health outcomes between intervention and comparison group were evaluated using mixed model analyses. Results. Compared to baseline, both groups showed reductions in body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein cholesterol in year post-intervention. For these outcome measures, no significant differences in changes were observed between intervention and comparison group. A significant improvement of 0.08 mmol/l in high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol was observed for the intervention group above the comparison group (P < 0.01). No significant intergroup differences were shown in drugs prescriptions and number of GP consultations. Conclusion. A CLI for overweight and obese patients in primary health care resulted in similar effects on health outcomes compared to usual care. Only an improvement on HDL cholesterol was shown. This study indicates that implementation and evaluation of a lifestyle intervention in primary health care is challenging due to political and financial barriers.
LINK
Background: Parents influence their children’s nutrition behavior. The relationship between parental influences and children’s nutrition behavior is often studied with a focus on the dyadic interaction between the parent and the child. However, parents and children are part of a broader system: the family. We investigated the relationship between the family nutrition climate (FNC), a family-level concept, and children’s nutrition behavior. Methods: Parents of primary school-aged children (N = 229) filled in the validated family nutrition climate (FNC) scale. This scale measures the families’ view on the consumption of healthy nutrition, consisting of four di erent concepts: value, communication, cohesion, and consensus. Parents also reported their children’s nutrition behavior (i.e., fruit, vegetable, water, candy, savory snack, and soda consumption). Multivariate linear regression analyses, correcting for potential confounders, were used to assess the relationship between the FNC scale (FNC-Total; model 1) and the di erent FNC subscales (model 2) and the child’s nutrition behavior. Results: FNC-Total was positively related to fruit and vegetable intake and negatively related to soda consumption. FNC-value was a significant predictor of vegetable (positive) and candy intake (negative), and FNC-communication was a significant predictor of soda consumption (negative). FNC-communication, FNC-cohesion, and FNC-consensus were significant predictors (positive, positive, and negative, respectively) of water consumption. Conclusions: The FNC is related to children’s nutrition behavior and especially to the consumption of healthy nutrition. These results imply the importance of taking the family-level influence into account when studying the influence of parents on children’s nutrition behavior. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR6716 (registration date 27 June 2017, retrospectively registered), METC163027, NL58554.068.16, Fonds NutsOhra project number 101.253.
Sinds de invoering van de Jeugdwet op 1 januari 2015 zijn gemeenten verantwoordelijk voor zowel het preventief jeugdbeleid (waaronder de jeugdgezondheidszorg) als de (gespecialiseerde) jeugdhulp, jeugdbescherming en jeugdreclassering. In veel gemeenten is gekozen voor het werken met wijkteams om deze verantwoordelijjkheid vorm te geven. In Amsterdam zijn dit de zgn. Ouder- en Kindteams (OKT’s). In deze teams werken jeugdgezondheidszorg en jeugdhulp samen. Als onderdeel van de preventieve taak kent de gemeente Amsterdam de Amsterdamse Aanpak Gezond Gewicht (AAGG). Deze aanpak kent verschillende onderdelen. Eén daarvan is de begeleiding van gezinnen met kinderen met morbide obesitas door de jeugdverpleegkundige vanuit de OKT’s. De jeugdverpleegkundige is daarbij de centrale zorgverlener (CZV) en coördineert de hulp rond het gezin en aan het kind. Dit is een nieuwe rol die nieuwe competenties van hen vergt. Niet langer draait de jeugdverpleegkundige een spreekuur voor ouders om de ontwikkeling van jonge kinderen te volgen. Als CZV werkt de jeugdverpleegkundige samen met andere disciplines rond het gezin, heeft een blijvende lerende attitute, heeft een flexibele houding en stelt het zelfmanagement van gezinnen centraal. Dit vergt nieuwe, 21st century competenties (Noorda, 2012). In de project werken de Gemeente Amsterdam (AAGG), de GGD Amsterdam, het Lectoraat Kwaliteit & Effectiviteit in de Zorg voor Jeugd, de opleiding Verpleegkunde en het uistroomprofiel jeugdzorgwerker (allen Hogeschool van Amsterdam) samen om de kerncompetenties voor de CZV in kaart te brengen en na te gaan hoe (toekomstige) jeugdverpleegkundigen het beste voorbereid kunnen worden op hun rol als CZV. Dit gebeurt aan de hand van focusgroepen met jeugdverpleegkundigen en interviews met 5 gezinnen en de bij hen betrokken hulpverleners. Producten zijn: lijst met kerncompetenties voor de CZV, factsheet met do’s en don’ts voor de CZV, een verslag, een artikel in een vakblad en lessen/een training voor de minor Kind (Verpleegkunde) en de uitstroomprofiel jeugdzorgwerker.
