Patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer have to deal with the consequences, such as major impact on their physical status and quality of life. A digital self-management tool could be a solution to support these patients in their self-management during the peri-operative period. This dissertation resulted in a better understanding of patients' needs and desires for (digital) self-management support during pre- (and post-operative) care. In addition, a core set consisting of the most relevant topics for self-management was developed. Differences were found between esophageal cancer patients in their expectations and needs regarding self-management and eHealth for self-management support. It is important to apply a diversity of forms of support given the increased desire to provide person-centered care and the fact that no single approach will meet the needs of all patients at all times. The development of a new (digital) self-management intervention to support these patients can be based on the results of the various studies in this dissertation.
LINK
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
Surgery aims to improve a patient’s medical condition. However, surgery is a major life event with the risk of negative consequences, like peri- and postoperative complications, prolonged hospitalization and delayed recovery of physical functioning. One of the major common side effects, functional decline, before (in the “waiting” period), during and after hospitalization is impressive, especially in frail people. Preoperative screening aims to identify frail, highrisk patients at an early stage, and advice these high-risk patients to start supervised preoperative home-based exercise training (prehabilitation) as soon as possible. Depending on the health status of the patient and his/her outcomes during the screening and the type of surgery, prehabilitation should focus on respiratory, cardiovascular and/or musculoskeletal parameters to prepare the patient for surgery. By improving preoperative physical fitness, a patient is able to better with stand the impact of major surgery and this will lead to a both reduced risk of negative side effects and better short term outcomes as a result. Besides prehabilitation hospital culture and infrastructure should be inherently activating so that patients stay as active as can be, socially, mentally and physically. In the first part of this chapter the concept of prehabilitation and different parameters that should be trained will be described. The second part focuses on the “Better in, Better out” (BiBo™) strategy, which aims to optimize patient’s pre-, peri- and postoperative physical fitness. Prehabilitation should comprise “shared decisions” between patient and physical therapist regarding experience and evidence based best options for rehabilitation goals, needs, and potential of the individual patient and his/her (in) formal support-system. Next, a case will describe the preoperative care pathway. This chapter will close with conclusions about how moving people before and after surgery will improve their outcomes.
DOCUMENT
Major resections for esophageal, gastric, hepatic, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer continue to be associated with a high peri-operative morbidity of up to 30%–40%. To a large extent, this morbidity is caused by infectious complications that add up to a considerable burden to patients and hospital costs. The objective of this large retrospective cross-sectional study was to determine independent patient and operation-related risk factors for infectious complications after major abdominal cancer operations to elucidate how infection rates can be reduced and improve health-care quality. In this study, several independent risk factors for infectious complications in major abdominal cancer operations were identified, providing opportunities for further reducing peri-operative infections.
LINK
Background Prehabilitation offers patients the opportunity to actively participate in their perioperative care by preparing themselves for their upcoming surgery. Experiencing barriers may lead to non-participation, which can result in a reduced functional capacity, delayed post-operative recovery and higher healthcare costs. Insight in the barriers and facilitators to participation in prehabilitation can inform further development and implementation of prehabilitation. The aim of this review was to identify patient-experienced barriers and facilitators for participation in prehabilitation. Methods For this mixed methods systematic review, articles were searched in PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they contained data on patient-reported barriers and facilitators to participation in prehabilitation in adults undergoing major surgery. Following database search, and title and abstract screening, full text articles were screened for eligibility and quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Relevant data from the included studies were extracted, coded and categorized into themes, using an inductive approach. Based on these themes, the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model was chosen to classify the identified themes. Results Three quantitative, 14 qualitative and 6 mixed methods studies, published between 2007 and 2022, were included in this review. A multitude of factors were identified across the different COM-B components. Barriers included lack of knowledge of the benefits of prehabilitation and not prioritizing prehabilitation over other commitments (psychological capability), physical symptoms and comorbidities (physical capability), lack of time and limited financial capacity (physical opportunity), lack of social support (social opportunity), anxiety and stress (automatic motivation) and previous experiences and feeling too fit for prehabilitation (reflective motivation). Facilitators included knowledge of the benefits of prehabilitation (psychological capability), having access to resources (physical opportunity), social support and encouragement by a health care professional (social support), feeling a sense of control (automatic motivation) and beliefs in own abilities (reflective motivation). Conclusions A large number of barriers and facilitators, influencing participation in prehabilitation, were found across all six COM-B components. To reach all patients and to tailor prehabilitation to the patient’s needs and preferences, it is important to take into account patients’ capability, opportunity and motivation.
DOCUMENT
Background: Post-term pregnancy, a pregnancy exceeding 294 days or 42 completed weeks, is associated with increased perinatal morbidity and mortality and is considered a high-risk condition which requires specialist surveillance and induction of labour. However, there is uncertainty on the policy concerning the timing of induction for post-term pregnancy or impending post-term pregnancy, leading to practice variation between caregivers. Previous studies on induction at or beyond 41 weeks versus expectant management showed different results on perinatal outcome though conclusions in meta-analyses show a preference for induction at 41 weeks. However, interpretation of the results is hampered by the limited sample size of most trials and the heterogeneity in design. Most control groups had a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour that went far beyond 42 weeks, which does not reflect usual care in The Netherlands where induction of labour at 42 weeks is the regular policy. Thus leaving the question unanswered if induction at 41 weeks results in better perinatal outcomes than expectant management until 42 weeks. Methods/design: In this study we compare a policy of labour induction at 41 + 0/+1 weeks with a policy of expectant management until 42 weeks in obstetrical low risk women without contra-indications for expectant management until 42 weeks and a singleton pregnancy in cephalic position. We will perform a multicenter randomised controlled clinical trial. Our primary outcome will be a composite outcome of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity. Secondary outcomes will be maternal outcomes as mode of delivery (operative vaginal delivery and Caesarean section), need for analgesia and postpartum haemorrhage (≥1000 ml). Maternal preferences, satisfaction, wellbeing, pain and anxiety will be assessed alongside the trial. Discussion: his study will provide evidence for the management of pregnant women reaching a gestational age of 41 weeks.
MULTIFILE
Introduction This study aims to explore maternal and perinatal outcomes of migrant women in Iceland. Material and methods This prospective population-based cohort study included women who gave birth to a singleton in Iceland between 1997 and 2018, comprising a total of 92 403 births. Migrant women were defined as women with citizenship other than Icelandic, including refugees and asylum seekers, and categorized into three groups, based on their country of citizenship Human Development Index score. The effect of country of citizenship was estimated. The main outcome measures were onset of labor, augmentation, epidural, perineum support, episiotomy, mode of birth, obstetric anal sphincter injury, postpartum hemorrhage, preterm birth, a 5-minute Apgar <7, neonatal intensive care unit admission and perinatal mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for maternal and perinatal outcomes were calculated using logistic regression models. Results A total of 8158 migrant women gave birth during the study period: 4401 primiparous and 3757 multiparous. Overall, migrant women had higher adjusted ORs (aORs) for episiotomy (primiparas: aOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.26–1.61; multiparas: 1.39, 95% CI 1.21–1.60) and instrumental births (primiparas: 1.14, 95% CI 1.02–1.27, multiparas: 1.41, 95% CI 1.16–1.72) and lower aORs of induction of labor (primiparas: 0.88, 95% CI 0.79–0.98; multiparas: 0.74, 95% CI 0.66–0.83), compared with Icelandic women. Migrant women from countries with a high Human Development Index score (≥0.900) had similar or better outcomes compared with Icelandic women, whereas migrant women from countries with a lower Human Development Index score than that of Iceland (<0.900) had additionally increased odds of maternal and perinatal complications and interventions, such as emergency cesarean and postpartum hemorrhage. Conclusions Women’s citizenship and country of citizenship Human Development Index scores are significantly associated with a range of maternal and perinatal complications and interventions, such as episiotomy and instrumental birth. The results indicate the need for further exploration of whether Icelandic perinatal healthcare services meet the care needs of migrant women.
DOCUMENT
Surgery is aimed at improving a patient's health. However, surgery is plagued with a risk of negative consequences, such as perioperative complications and prolonged hospitalization. Also, achieving preoperative levels of physical functionality may be delayed. Above all, the "waiting" period before the operation and the period of hospitalisation endanger the state of health, especially in frail patients.The Better in Better out™ (BiBo™) strategy is aimed at reducing the risk of a complicated postoperative course through the optimisation and professionalisation of perioperative treatment strategies in a physiotherapy activating context. BiBo™ includes four steps towards optimising personalised health care in patients scheduled for elective surgery: 1) preoperative risk assessment, 2) preoperative patient education, 3) preoperative exercise therapy for high-risk patients (prehabilitation) and 4) postoperative mobilisation and functional exercise therapy.Preoperative screening is aimed at identifying frail, high-risk patients at an early stage, and advising these high-risk patients to participate in outpatient exercise training (prehabilitation) as soon as possible. By improving preoperative physical fitness, a patient is able to better withstand the impact of major surgery and this will lead to both a reduced risk of negative side effects and better short-term outcomes as a result. Besides prehabilitation, treatment culture and infrastructure should be inherently changing in such a way that patients stay as active as they can, socially, mentally and physically after discharge.
DOCUMENT
Older people are often over-represented in morbidity and mortality statistics associated with hot and cold weather, despite remaining mostly indoors. The study “Improving thermal environment of housing for older Australians” focused on assessing the relationships between the indoor environment, building characteristics, thermal comfort and perceived health/wellbeing of older South Australians over a study period that included the warmest summer on record. Our findings showed that indoor temperatures in some of the houses reached above 35 °C. With concerns about energy costs, occupants often use adaptive behaviours to achieve thermal comfort instead of using cooling (or heating), although feeling less satisfied with the thermal environment and perceiving health/wellbeing to worsen at above 28 °C (and below 15 °C). Symptoms experienced during hot weather included tiredness, shortness of breath, sleeplessness and dizziness, with coughs and colds, painful joints, shortness of breath and influenza experienced during cold weather. To express the influence of temperature and humidity on perceived health/wellbeing, a Temperature Humidity Health Index (THHI) was developed for this cohort. A health/wellbeing perception of “very good” is achieved between an 18.4 °C and 24.3 °C indoor operative temperature and a 55% relative humidity. The evidence from this research is used to inform guidelines about maintaining home environments to be conducive to the health/wellbeing of older people. Original publication at MDPI: https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13010096 © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI.
MULTIFILE
Aim To provide insight into the basic characteristics of decision making in the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SSAS) in Dutch heart centres with specific emphasis on the evaluation of frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL]. Methods A questionnaire was used that is based on the European and American guidelines for SSAS treatment. The survey was administered to physicians and non-physicians in Dutch heart centres involved in the decision-making pathway for SSAS treatment. Results All 16 Dutch heart centres participated. Before a patient case is discussed by the heart team, heart centres rarely request data from the referring hospital regarding patients’ functionality (n = 5), frailty scores (n = 0) and geriatric consultation (n = 1) as a standard procedure. Most heart centres ‘often to always’ do their own screening for frailty (n = 10), cognition/mood (n = 9), nutritional status (n = 10) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). During heart team meetings data are ‘sometimes to regularly’ available regarding frailty (n = 5), cognition/mood (n = 11), nutritional status (n = 8) and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL (n = 10). After assessment in the outpatient clinic patient cases are re-discussed ‘sometimes to regularly’ in heart team meetings (n = 10). Conclusions Dutch heart centres make an effort to evaluate frailty, cognition, nutritional status and physical functioning/functionality in (I)ADL for decision making regarding SSAS treatment. However, these patient data are not routinely requested from the referring hospital and are not always available for heart team meetings. Incorporation of these important data in a structured manner early in the decision-making process may provide additional useful information for decision making in the heart team meeting.
LINK
