Implementation of effective blended periconception lifestyle care in a tertiary hospital in the Netherlands:A cross-sectional study on determinants and patient satisfaction

OBJECTIVE: To identify implementation determinants of blended periconception lifestyle care, and to evaluate patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The outpatient clinic of the department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. PARTICIPANTS: Implementation part: counsellors providing blended periconception lifestyle care. Patient satisfaction part: women who received blended periconception lifestyle care. METHODS: Blended periconception lifestyle care, including face-to-face counselling and 26 weeks of lifestyle coaching via the online platform ‘Smarter Pregnancy’, was implemented between June–December 2018. The Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire was used as input for the consolidated framework for implementation research to assess determinants of implementation. To evaluate patient satisfaction, patients receiving lifestyle care filled out an evaluation questionnaire, including questions on the needs for lifestyle counselling, information provision during counselling, and motivation and lifestyle change after counselling. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Identification of implementation determinants and the level of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Facilitators were reported in the implementation domains ‘characteristics of the intervention’ and ‘characteristics of the individuals’. Barriers were in the implementation domains ‘inner setting’ and ‘implementation process’. Regarding patient satisfaction on nutrition counselling, 31% of the respondents wanted information prior to the counselling session, 22% received new information after consultation, 51% got motivated to change and 40% changed their nutritional behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of patients improved lifestyle after counselling, although, a relatively small number wanted lifestyle counselling prior to consultation. This study underlines the importance of implementation science and the information it provides for improving the implementation process

SERIES: eHealth in primary care. Part 1: Concepts, conditions and challenges.

Primary care is challenged to provide high quality, accessible and affordable care for an increasingly ageing, complex, and multimorbid population. To counter these challenges, primary care professionals need to take up new and innovative practices, including eHealth. eHealth applications hold the promise to overcome some difficulties encountered in the care of people with complex medical and social needs in primary care. However, many unanswered questions regarding (cost) effectiveness, integration with healthcare, and acceptability to patients, caregivers, and professionals remain to be elucidated. What conditions need to be met? What challenges need to be overcome? What downsides must be dealt with? This first paper in a series on eHealth in primary care introduces basic concepts and examines opportunities for the uptake of eHealth in primary care. We illustrate that although the potential of eHealth in primary care is high, several conditions need to be met to ensure that safe and high-quality eHealth is developed for and implemented in primary care. eHealth research needs to be optimized; ensuring evidence-based eHealth is available. Blended care, i.e. combining face-to-face care with remote options, personalized to the individual patient should be considered. Stakeholders need to be involved in the development and implementation of eHealth via co-creation processes, and design should be mindful of vulnerable groups and eHealth illiteracy. Furthermore, a global perspective on eHealth should be adopted, and eHealth ethics, patients' safety and privacy considered.Published versio

Publisher Correction:Implementing a context-driven awareness programme addressing household air pollution and tobacco: a FRESH AIR study

In the original version of this Article, Table 2 was formatted in such a way that made it difficult to interpret. This has now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.</p

Development and implementation of guidelines for the management of depression: a systematic review

Objective: To evaluate the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines for the management of depression globally. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of existing guidelines for the management of depression in adults with major depressive or bipolar disorder. For each identified guideline, we assessed compliance with measures of guideline development quality (such as transparency in guideline development processes and funding, multidisciplinary author group composition, systematic review of comparative efficacy research) and implementation (such as quality indicators). We compared guidelines from low- and middle-income countries with those from high-income countries. Findings: We identified 82 national and 13 international clinical practice guidelines from 83 countries in 27 languages. Guideline development processes and funding sources were explicitly specified in a smaller proportion of guidelines from low- and middle-income countries (8/29; 28%) relative to high-income countries (35/58; 60%). Fewer guidelines (2/29; 7%) from low- and middle-income countries, relative to high-income countries (22/58; 38%), were authored by a multidisciplinary development group. A systematic review of comparative effectiveness was conducted in 31% (9/29) of low- and middle-income country guidelines versus 71% (41/58) of high-income country guidelines. Only 10% (3/29) of low- and middle-income country and 19% (11/58) of high-income country guidelines described plans to assess quality indicators or recommendation adherence. Conclusion: Globally, guideline implementation is inadequately planned, reported and measured. Narrowing disparities in the development and implementation of guidelines in low- and middle-income countries is a priority. Future guidelines should present strategies to implement recommendations and measure feasibility, cost-effectiveness and impact on health outcomes

The effect of an integrated palliative care intervention on quality of life and acute healthcare use in patients with COPD:Results of the COMPASSION cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: COPD causes high morbidity and mortality, emphasizing the need for palliative care. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of palliative care in patients with COPD. Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial (COMPASSION study; Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644, 07-04-2019). Healthcare providers within the intervention group were trained to implement palliative care components into routine COPD care. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, after 3 and 6 months; medical records were assessed after 12 months. The primary outcome was quality of life (FACIT-Pal). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, spiritual well-being, satisfaction with care, acute healthcare use, documentation of life-sustaining treatment preferences and place of death. Generalized linear mixed modelling was used for analyses. Setting: Eight hospital regions in the Netherlands. Participants: Patients hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of COPD and positive ProPal-COPD score. Results: Of 222 patients included, 106 responded to the questionnaire at 6 months. Thirty-six of 98 intervention patients (36.7%) received the intervention. Intention-to-treat-analysis showed no effect on the primary outcome (adjusted difference: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: −5.44 to 7.60). In the intervention group, fewer intensive care admissions for COPD took place (adjusted odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.81) and strong indications were found for fewer hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.46–1.03). Conclusions: We found no evidence that palliative care improves quality of life in patients with COPD. However, it can potentially reduce acute healthcare use. The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic led to suboptimal implementation and insufficient power, and may have affected some of our findings.</p

Implementation of a palliative care intervention for patients with COPD: a mixed methods process evaluation of the COMPASSION study

Objectives: Little direction exists on how to effectively implement palliative care for patients with COPD. In the COMPASSION study, we developed, executed, and evaluated a multifaceted implementation strategy to improve the uptake of region-tailored palliative care intervention components into routine COPD care. We evaluated the implementation strategy and assessed the implementation process, barriers, and facilitators. Methods: A mixed methods process evaluation was performed. Primary and secondary healthcare providers in four hospital regions in the Netherlands were trained. Patients identified during hospitalisation for an acute exacerbation received palliative care and were followed for a year. Various sources were used: process data, questionnaires including the End-of-life Professional Caregiver Survey (EPCS), medical records, monitoring meetings, and interviews. The Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to categorize implementation determinants. Results: The training sessions with roleplay were positively evaluated and increased professionals’ self-efficacy in providing palliative care statistically significantly. Of 98 patients identified, 44 (44.9%) received one or more palliative care conversations at the outpatient clinic. Having those conversations was highly valued by healthcare providers because it led to clarity and peace of mind for the patient and higher job satisfaction. Coordination and continuity remained suboptimal. Most important barriers to implementation were time constraints, the COVID-19 pandemic, and barriers related to transmural and interdisciplinary collaboration. Facilitators were the systematic screening of patients for palliative care needs, adapting to the patient’s readiness, conducting palliative care conversations with a pulmonologist and a COPD nurse together, and meeting regularly with a small team led by a dedicated implementation leader. Conclusions: Providing integrated palliative care for patients with COPD is highly valued by healthcare providers but remains challenging. Our findings will guide future implementation efforts. Future research should focus on how to optimize transmural and interdisciplinary collaboration. Trial registration The COMPASSION study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644. Registration date: 07/04/2019

External Validation and User Experiences of the ProPal-COPD Tool to Identify the Palliative Phase in COPD

BACKGROUND: Difficulty predicting prognosis is a major barrier to timely palliative care provision for patients with COPD. The ProPal-COPD tool, combining six clinical indicators and the Surprise Question (SQ), aims to predict 1-year mortality as a proxy for palliative care needs. It appeared to be a promising tool for healthcare providers to identify patients with COPD who could benefit from palliative care. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the ProPal-COPD tool and to assess user experiences. METHODS: Patients admitted with an acute exacerbation COPD were recruited across 10 hospitals. Demographics, clinical characteristics and survival status were collected. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the tool using two cut-off values were calculated. Also, predictive properties of the SQ were calculated. In monitoring meetings and interviews, healthcare providers shared their experiences with the tool. Transcripts were deductively coded using six user experience domains: Acceptability, Satisfaction, Credibility, Usability, User-reported adherence and Perceived impact. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients with COPD were included between May 2019 and August 2020, of whom 100 (19.1%) died within 12 months. The ProPal-COPD tool had an AUC of 0.68 and a low sensitivity (55%) and moderate specificity (74%) for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality. Using a lower cut-off value, sensitivity was higher (74%), but specificity lower (46%). Sensitivity and specificity of the SQ were 56% and 73%, respectively (AUC 0.65). However, healthcare providers generally appreciated using the tool because it increased awareness of the palliative phase and provided a shared understanding of prognosis, although they considered its outcome not always correct. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of the ProPal-COPD tool to predict 1-year mortality is limited, although screening patients with its indicators increases healthcare providers’ awareness of palliative care needs and encourages them to timely initiate appropriate care

External Validation and User Experiences of the ProPal-COPD Tool to Identify the Palliative Phase in COPD

Background: Difficulty predicting prognosis is a major barrier to timely palliative care provision for patients with COPD. The ProPal-COPD tool, combining six clinical indicators and the Surprise Question (SQ), aims to predict 1-year mortality as a proxy for palliative care needs. It appeared to be a promising tool for healthcare providers to identify patients with COPD who could benefit from palliative care. Objective: To externally validate the ProPal-COPD tool and to assess user experiences. Methods: Patients admitted with an acute exacerbation COPD were recruited across 10 hospitals. Demographics, clinical characteristics and survival status were collected. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the tool using two cut-off values were calculated. Also, predictive properties of the SQ were calculated. In monitoring meetings and interviews, healthcare providers shared their experiences with the tool. Transcripts were deductively coded using six user experience domains: Acceptability, Satisfaction, Credibility, Usability, User-reported adherence and Perceived impact. Results: A total of 523 patients with COPD were included between May 2019 and August 2020, of whom 100 (19.1%) died within 12 months. The ProPal-COPD tool had an AUC of 0.68 and a low sensitivity (55%) and moderate specificity (74%) for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality. Using a lower cut-off value, sensitivity was higher (74%), but specificity lower (46%). Sensitivity and specificity of the SQ were 56% and 73%, respectively (AUC 0.65). However, healthcare providers generally appreciated using the tool because it increased awareness of the palliative phase and provided a shared understanding of prognosis, although they considered its outcome not always correct. Conclusion: The accuracy of the ProPal-COPD tool to predict 1-year mortality is limited, although screening patients with its indicators increases healthcare providers' awareness of palliative care needs and encourages them to timely initiate appropriate care

Blended self-management interventions to reduce disease burden in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma : systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma have a high prevalence and disease burden. Blended self-management interventions, which combine eHealth with face-to-face interventions, can help reduce the disease burden.Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions on health-related effectiveness and process outcomes for people with COPD or asthma. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library, Emcare, and Embase were searched in December 2018 and updated in November 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.Results: A total of 15 COPD and 7 asthma randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis of COPD studies found that the blended intervention showed a small improvement in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-0.85) and a significant improvement in the quality of life (QoL; SMD 0.81; 95% CI 0.11-1.51). Blended intervention also reduced the admission rate (relative ratio [RR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.97). In the COPD systematic review, regarding the exacerbation frequency, both studies found that the intervention reduced exacerbation frequency (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.56). A large effect was found on BMI (d=0.81; 95% CI 0.25-1.34); however, the effect was inconclusive because only 1 study was included. Regarding medication adherence, 2 of 3 studies found a moderate effect (d=0.73; 95% CI 0.50-0.96), and 1 study reported a mixed effect. Regarding self-management ability, 1 study reported a large effect (d=1.15; 95% CI 0.66-1.62), and no effect was reported in that study. No effect was found on other process outcomes. The meta-analysis of asthma studies found that blended intervention had a small improvement in lung function (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.62) and QoL (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.50) and a moderate improvement in asthma control (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.40-0.93). A large effect was found on BMI (d=1.42; 95% CI 0.28-2.42) and exercise capacity (d=1.50; 95% CI 0.35-2.50); however, 1 study was included per outcome. There was no effect on other outcomes. Furthermore, the majority of the 22 studies showed some concerns about the ROB, and the quality of evidence varied.Conclusions: In patients with COPD, the blended self-management interventions had mixed effects on health-related outcomes, with the strongest evidence found for exercise capacity, QoL, and admission rate. Furthermore, the review suggested that the interventions resulted in small effects on lung function and QoL and a moderate effect on asthma control in patients with asthma. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions for patients with COPD and asthma; however, more research is needed.Prevention, Population and Disease management (PrePoD)Public Health and primary car

eHealth-Based Psychosocial Interventions for Adults With Insomnia: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Worldwide, insomnia remains a highly prevalent public health problem. eHealth presents a novel opportunity to deliver effective, accessible, and affordable insomnia treatments on a population-wide scale. However, there is no quantitative integration of evidence regarding the effectiveness of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions on insomnia. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions for insomnia and investigate the influence of specific study characteristics and intervention features on these effects. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to February 16, 2021, for publications investigating eHealth-based psychosocial interventions targeting insomnia and updated the search of PubMed to December 6, 2021. We also screened gray literature for unpublished data. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions targeting adults with insomnia. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to assess primary and secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were insomnia severity and sleep quality. Meta-analyses were performed by pooling the effects of eHealth-based psychosocial interventions on insomnia compared with inactive and in-person conditions. We performed subgroup analyses and metaregressions to explore specific factors that affected the effectiveness. Secondary outcomes included sleep diary parameters and mental health–related outcomes. Results: Of the 19,980 identified records, 37 randomized controlled trials (13,227 participants) were included. eHealth-based psychosocial interventions significantly reduced insomnia severity (Hedges g=−1.01, 95% CI −1.12 to −0.89; P<.001) and improved sleep quality (Hedges g=−0.58, 95% CI −0.75 to −0.41; P<.001) compared with inactive control conditions, with no evidence of publication bias. We found no significant difference compared with in-person treatment in alleviating insomnia severity (Hedges g=0.41, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.85; P=.06) and a significant advantage for in-person treatment in enhancing sleep quality (Hedges g=0.56, 95% CI 0.24-0.88; P<.001). eHealth-based psychosocial interventions had significantly larger effects (P=.01) on alleviating insomnia severity in clinical samples than in subclinical samples. eHealth-based psychosocial interventions that incorporated guidance from trained therapists had a significantly greater effect on insomnia severity (P=.05) and sleep quality (P=.02) than those with guidance from animated therapists or no guidance. Higher baseline insomnia severity and longer intervention duration were associated with a larger reduction in insomnia severity (P=.004). eHealth-based psychosocial interventions significantly improved each secondary outcome. Conclusions: eHealth interventions for insomnia are effective in improving sleep and mental health and can be considered a promising treatment for insomnia. Our findings support the wider dissemination of eHealth interventions and their further promotion in a stepped-care model. Offering blended care could improve treatment effectiveness. Future research needs to elucidate which specific intervention components are most important to achieve intervention effectiveness. Blended eHealth interventions may be tailored to benefit people with low socioeconomic status, limited access to health care, or lack of eHealth literacy