LIVER-TRANSPLANTATION - THE SHADOW SIDE

For a relatively large number of patients with liver disease, a liver transplant does not always provide a successful solution. What does confrontation with this modern technology mean for those involved? We interviewed 30 relatives of patients who had died after they had been turned down for a transplant, or during or shortly after a liver transplant operation performed in the Groningen Liver Transplant Programme. Quantitative data were obtained by means of a questionnaire. One-third of the respondents were of the opinion that the patient would have been better off if he/she had not entered the programme. Over half found the loss more difficult to accept because the patient had been involved in the programme. Nevertheless, many had the feeling of satisfaction that everything possible had been done. However fruitful transplantation technology may be for a specific group of patients, it also involves undesirable side-effects which should be included in the careful judgement of this technology

Verslag van een onderzoek naar de invloed van de keileem - ondergrond op en de correlatie van het vegetatieprofiel met de gemeten grondwaterstanden in twee gebieden van het dekzand - keileemlandschap in de Friese Wouden

Stiboka onderzoek relatie keileem - grondwaterstand - gewasgroe

A comparison of two multidimensional measures of health status: The Nottingham Health profile and the RAND 36-item Health Survey 1.0

In this study the applicability of two multidimensional instruments, the NHP and the RAND 36-item Health Survey 1.0, for measuring health status in population surveys was examined. A population sample of 1.063 persons aged over 17 years participated in the study. It was shown that, as compared with the NHP, the RAND 36-item Health Survey 1.0 is a more reliable measure of health status. Second, within a group of subjects who scored 'zero' on the NHP, considerable dispersion in RAND 36-item Health Survey 1.0 scores was found. For the whole group, no significant differences were found in the amount of variance explained by the corresponding scales from both instruments in the prevalence of chronic diseases. However, among subjects with a zero score on the NHP, the RAND 36-item Health Survey 1.0 scores were still predictive of the occurrence of chronic diseases. It was concluded that, compared with the NHP, the RAND 36-item Health Survey 1.0 seems to be a more sensitive instrument for the use in population samples