This ‘cohort profile’ aims to provide a description of the study design, methodology, and baseline characteristics of the participants in the Corona Behavioral Unit cohort. This cohort was established in response to the COVID-19 pandemic by the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and the regional public health services. The aim was to investigate adherence of and support for COVID-19 prevention measures, psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 behaviors, well-being, COVID-19 vaccination, and media use. The cohort also examined specific motivations and beliefs, such as for vaccination, which were collected through either closed-ended items or open text responses. In April 2020, 89,943 participants aged 16 years and older were recruited from existing nation-wide panels. Between May 2020 and September 2022, 99,676 additional participants were recruited through online social media platforms and mailing lists of higher education organizations. Participants who consented were initially invited every three weeks (5 rounds), then every six weeks (13 rounds), and since the summer of 2022 every 12 weeks (3 rounds). To date, 66% of participants were female, 30% were 39 years and younger, and 54% completed two or more questionnaires, with an average of 9.2 (SD = 5.7) questionnaires. The Corona Behavioral Unit COVID-19 cohort has published detailed insights into longitudinal patterns of COVID-19 related behaviors, support of COVID-19 preventive measures, as well as peoples’ mental wellbeing in relation to the stringency of these measures. The results have informed COVID-19 policy making and pandemic communication in the Netherlands throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The cohort data will continuously be used to examine COVID-19 related outcomes for scientific analyses, as well as to inform future pandemic preparedness plans.
MULTIFILE
OBJECTIVES: To improve transmural palliative care for acutely admitted older patients, the PalliSupport transmural care pathway was developed. Implementation of this care pathway was challenging. The aim of this study was to improve understanding why the implementation partly failed.DESIGN: A qualitative process evaluation study.SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 17 professionals who were involved in the PalliSupport program were interviewed.METHODS: Online semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis to create themes according to the implementation framework of Grol & Wensing.RESULTS: From this study, themes within four levels of implementation emerged: 1) The innovation: challenges in current palliative care, the setting of the pathway and boost for improvement; 2) Individual professional: feeling (un)involved and motivation; 3) Organizational level: project management; 4) Political and economic level: project plan and evaluation.CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We learned that the challenges involved in implementing a transmural care pathway in palliative care should not be underestimated. For successful implementation, we emphasize the importance of creating a program that fits the complexity of transmural palliative care. We suggest starting on a small scale and invest in project management. This could help to involve all stakeholders and anticipate current challenges in palliative care. To increase acceptance, create one care pathway that can start and be used in all care settings. Make sure that there is sufficient flexibility in time and room to adjust the project plan, so that a second pilot study can possibly be performed, and choose a scientific evaluation with both rigor and practical usefulness to evaluate effectiveness.
BackgroundTo improve transmural palliative care for older adults acutely admitted to hospital, the PalliSupport intervention, comprising an educational programme and transmural palliative care pathway, was developed. This care pathway involves timely identification of palliative care needs, advance care planning, multidisciplinary team meetings, warm handover, and follow-up home visits. With this study, we evaluate changes in patient-related outcomes and transmural collaboration after implementation of the care pathway.MethodsWe conducted a before-after study, in which we compared 1) unplanned hospital admission and death at place of preference and 2) transmural collaboration before implementation, up to six months, and six to 18 months after implementation. Data from palliative care team consultations were collected between February 2017 and February 2020 in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands.ResultsThe palliative care team held 711 first-time consultations. The number of consultation, as well as the number of consultations for patients with non-malignant diseases, and consultations for advance care planning increased after implementation. The implementation of the pathway had no statistically significant effect on unplanned hospitalization but associated positively with death at place of preference more than six months after implementation (during/shortly after adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.84–5.35; p-value: 0.11, long term after adjusted OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.49–6.62; p-value: 0.003). Effects on transmural collaboration showed that there were more warm handovers during/shortly after implementation, but not on long term. Primary care professionals attended multidisciplinary team meetings more often during and shortly after implementation, but did not more than six months after implementation.ConclusionsThe pathway did not affect unplanned hospital admissions, but more patients died at their place of preference after implementation. Implementation of the pathway increased attention to- and awareness for in-hospital palliative care, but did not improve transmural collaboration on long-term. For some patients, the hospital admissions might helped in facilitating death at place of preference.
MULTIFILE
