Dropout from exercise programs for seniors: a prospective cohort study

This study examines dropout incidence, moment of dropout, and switching behavior in organized exercise programs for seniors in the Netherlands, as determined in a prospective cohort study (with baseline measurements at the start of the exercise program and follow-up after 6 months; N = 1,725, response rate 73%). Participants were community-living individuals 50+ who participated in different forms of organized exercise programs. The average dropout incidence was 0.15 per 6 months, which is lower than that for the general population. The dropout incidence and the timing of dropout differed substantially between the exercise programs. In total, 31% of people who dropped out of one type of exercise program switched to another type of exercise. The type of program and exercise had a strong effect on differences in this switching behavior. It is recommended that switching behavior be monitored in future studie

Does value-based healthcare support patient-centred care? A scoping review of the evidence

Background Standardisation of outcome measures is integral to value-based healthcare (VBHC), which may conflict with patient-centred care, focusing on personalisation.Objectives We aimed to provide an overview of measures used to assess the effect of VBHC implementation and to examine to what extent the evidence indicates that VBHC supports patient-centred care.Design A scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.Sources of evidence We searched the following databases on 18 February 2021: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science.Eligibility criteria We included empirical papers assessing the effect of the implementation of VBHC, published after introduction of VBHC in 2006.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers double-screened papers and data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by the other. We classified the study measures used in included papers into six categories: process indicator, cost measure, clinical outcome, patient-reported outcome, patient-reported experience or clinician-reported experience. We then assessed the patient-centredness of the study measures used.Results We included 39 studies using 94 unique study measures. The most frequently used study measures (n=72) were process indicators, cost measures and clinical outcomes, which rarely were patient-centred. The less frequently used (n=20) patient-reported outcome and experience measures often measured a dimension of patient-centred care.Conclusion Our study shows that the evidence on VBHC supporting patient-centred care is limited, exposing a knowledge gap in VBHC research. The most frequently used study measures in VBHC research are not patient-centred. The major focus seems to be on measures of quality of care defined from a provider, institution or payer perspective

Cancer patients' preferences for quantity or quality of life: German translation and validation of the quality and quantity questionnaire

Background: Decision-making with patients with incurable cancer often requires trade-offs between quality and length of life. The ‘Quality and Quantity Questionnaire' (QQ) is an English-language measure of patients' preference for length or quality of life. The aim of this study was to translate and validate this questionnaire. Materials and Methods: 1 new item was formulated to improve the ‘Quality of life' scale. Construct validity including exploratory factor analysis, convergent and discriminant validity, and reliability was determined in n = 194 patients. Results: The acceptability of the questionnaire among patients was high. The item-non-response rate was very low (2.5-4%). The 2 QQ scales ‘Quality of life' (QL) and ‘Length of life' (LL) had good and acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's = 0.71 for LL and 0.59 for QL). Convergent validity was shown by significant correlation of the QL subscale with the CCAT (Cancer Communication Assessment Tool) subscale ‘Limitation of treatment' (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) and the LL scale with the CCAT subscale ‘Continuing treatment' (r = 0.24, p = 0.00). Conclusion: The German version of ‘QQ' has satisfactory psychometric properties for measuring patients' preferences for LL or QL. It can be used in all research fields that should be informed by patients' preferences: shared decision-making, palliative care, and health services

For which decisions is Shared Decision Making considered appropriate? – A systematic review

Objective:To identify decision characteristics for which SDM authors deem SDM appropriate or not, and what arguments are used.Methods:We applied two search strategies: we included SDM models from an earlier review (strategy 1) and conducted a new search in eight databases to include papers other than describing an SDM model, such as original research, opinion papers and reviews (strategy 2).Results:From the 92 included papers, we identified 18 decision characteristics for which authors deemed SDM appropriate, including preference-sensitive, equipoise and decisions where patient commitment is needed in implementing the decision. SDM authors indicated limits to SDM, especially when there are immediate life-saving measures needed. We identified four decision characteristics on which authors of different papers disagreed on whether or not SDM is appropriate.Conclusion:The findings of this review show the broad range of decision characteristics for which authors deem SDM appropriate, the ambiguity of some, and potential limits of SDM.Practice implications:The findings can stimulate clinicians to (re)consider pursuing SDM in situations in which they did not before. Additionally, it can inform SDM campaigns and educational programs as it shows for which decision situations SDM might be more or less challenging to practice

Patient-clinician collaboration in making care fit:A qualitative analysis of clinical consultations in diabetes care

Objective: To confirm described dimensions of making care fit and explore how patients and clinicians collaborate to make care fit in clinical practice. Methods: As part of an ongoing study, we audiotaped and transcribed patient-clinician consultations in diabetes care. We purposively selected consultations based on participants’ demographical, biomedical and biographical characteristics. We analysed transcripts using reflexive thematic analysis. We combined a deductive and inductive approach, using the pre-described dimensions of making care fit and adding new (sub-)dimensions when pertinent. Results: We analysed 24 clinical consultations. Our data confirmed eight previously described dimensions and provided new sub-dimensions of making care fit with examples from clinical practice (problematic situation, influence of devices, sense of options, shared agenda setting, clinician context, adapting to changing organization of care, and possibility to reconsider). Conclusion: Our study confirmed, specified and enriched the conceptualization of making care fit through practice examples. We observed patient-clinician collaboration in exploration of patients’ context, and by responsively changing, adapting or maintaining care plans. Practice implications: Our findings support clinicians and researchers with insights in important aspects of patient-clinician collaboration. Ultimately, this would lead to optimal design of care plans that fit well in each patient life.</p

Patient-clinician collaboration in making care fit:A qualitative analysis of clinical consultations in diabetes care

Objective: To confirm described dimensions of making care fit and explore how patients and clinicians collaborate to make care fit in clinical practice. Methods: As part of an ongoing study, we audiotaped and transcribed patient-clinician consultations in diabetes care. We purposively selected consultations based on participants’ demographical, biomedical and biographical characteristics. We analysed transcripts using reflexive thematic analysis. We combined a deductive and inductive approach, using the pre-described dimensions of making care fit and adding new (sub-)dimensions when pertinent. Results: We analysed 24 clinical consultations. Our data confirmed eight previously described dimensions and provided new sub-dimensions of making care fit with examples from clinical practice (problematic situation, influence of devices, sense of options, shared agenda setting, clinician context, adapting to changing organization of care, and possibility to reconsider). Conclusion: Our study confirmed, specified and enriched the conceptualization of making care fit through practice examples. We observed patient-clinician collaboration in exploration of patients’ context, and by responsively changing, adapting or maintaining care plans. Practice implications: Our findings support clinicians and researchers with insights in important aspects of patient-clinician collaboration. Ultimately, this would lead to optimal design of care plans that fit well in each patient life.</p

Shared Decision Making in Health Care Visits for CKD:Patients’ Decisional Role Preferences and Experiences

Rationale &amp; Objective: Research on shared decision making (SDM) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) has focused almost exclusively on the modality of kidney replacement treatment. We explored what other CKD decisions are recognized by patients, what their preferences and experiences are regarding these decisions, and how decisions are made during their interactions with medical care professionals. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting &amp; Participants: Patients with CKD receiving (outpatient) care in 1 of 2 Dutch hospitals. Exposure: Patients’ preferred decisional roles for treatment decisions were measured using the Control Preferences Scale survey administered after a health care visit with medical professionals. Outcome: Number of decisions for which patients experienced a decisional role that did or did not match their preferred role. Observed levels of SDM and motivational interviewing in audio recordings of health care visits, measured using the 4-step SDM instrument (4SDM) and Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding tools.Analytical Approach: The results were characterized using descriptive statistics, including differences in scores between the patients’ experienced and preferred decisional roles. Results: According to the survey (n = 122) patients with CKD frequently reported decisions regarding planning (112 of 122), medication changes (82 of 122), or lifestyle changes (59 of 122). Of the 357 reported decisions in total, patients preferred that clinicians mostly (125 of 357) or fully (101 of 357) make the decisions. For 116 decisions, they preferred a shared decisional role. For 151 of 357 decisions, the patients’ preferences did not match their experiences. Decisions were experienced as “less shared/patient-directed” (76 of 357) or “more shared/patient-directed” (75 of 357) than preferred. Observed SDM in 118 coded decisions was low (median 4; range, 0 – 22). Motivational interviewing techniques were rarely used. Limitations: Potential recall and selection bias, and limited generalizability. Conclusions: We identified multiple discrepancies between preferred, experienced, and observed SDM in health care visits for CKD. Although patients varied in their preferred decisional role, a large minority of patients expressed a preference for shared decision making for many decisions. However, SDM behavior during the health care visits was observed infrequently. Plain-Language Summary: Shared decision making (SDM) may be a valuable approach for common chronic kidney disease (CKD) decisions, but our knowledge is limited. We collected patient surveys after health care visits for CKD. Patients most frequently experienced decisions regarding planning, medication, and lifestyle. Three decisional roles were preferred by comparable numbers of patients: let the clinician alone decide, let the clinician decide for the most part, or “equally share” the decision. Patients’ experiences of who made the decision did not always match their preferences. In audio recordings of the health care visits, we observed low levels of SDM behavior. These findings suggest that the preference for “sharing decisions” is often unmet for a large number of patients.</p

Predicting outcomes in chronic kidney disease:needs and preferences of patients and nephrologists

Introduction: Guidelines on chronic kidney disease (CKD) recommend that nephrologists use clinical prediction models (CPMs). However, the actual use of CPMs seems limited in clinical practice. We conducted a national survey study to evaluate: 1) to what extent CPMs are used in Dutch CKD practice, 2) patients’ and nephrologists’ needs and preferences regarding predictions in CKD, and 3) determinants that may affect the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with CKD patients to inform the development of two online surveys; one for CKD patients and one for nephrologists. Survey participants were recruited through the Dutch Kidney Patient Association and the Dutch Federation of Nephrology. Results: A total of 126 patients and 50 nephrologists responded to the surveys. Most patients (89%) reported they had discussed predictions with their nephrologists. They most frequently discussed predictions regarded CKD progression: when they were expected to need kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (n = 81), and how rapidly their kidney function was expected to decline (n = 68). Half of the nephrologists (52%) reported to use CPMs in clinical practice, in particular CPMs predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease. Almost all nephrologists (98%) reported discussing expected CKD trajectories with their patients; even those that did not use CPMs (42%). The majority of patients (61%) and nephrologists (84%) chose a CPM predicting when patients would need KRT in the future as the most important prediction. However, a small portion of patients indicated they did not want to be informed on predictions regarding CKD progression at all (10–15%). Nephrologists not using CPMs (42%) reported they did not know CPMs they could use or felt that they had insufficient knowledge regarding CPMs. According to the nephrologists, the most important determinants for the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice were: 1) understandability for patients, 2) integration as standard of care, 3) the clinical relevance. Conclusion: Even though the majority of patients in Dutch CKD practice reported discussing predictions with their nephrologists, CPMs are infrequently used for this purpose. Both patients and nephrologists considered a CPM predicting CKD progression most important to discuss. Increasing awareness about existing CPMs that predict CKD progression may result in increased adoption in clinical practice. When using CPMs regarding CKD progression, nephrologists should ask whether patients want to hear predictions beforehand, since individual patients’ preferences vary.</p

Кредитний механізм реалізації фінансової стратегії розвитку великого промислового регіону

Мета даної статті полягає в розробці на основі системного підходу концепції вдосконалення кредитного механізму реалізації фінансової стратегії розвитку великого промислового регіону, яка призведе до підвищення його прибутковості

Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients' utilities and treatment preferences

To assess patients' utilities for health state outcomes after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer and to investigate the patients' treatment preferences for either procedure. The study group consisted of 48 patients who had undergone either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy. In an interview they were presented with eight possible health states following oesophagectomy. Visual Analogue Scale and standard gamble techniques were used to measure utilities. Treatment preference for either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy was assessed. Highest scores were found for the patients' own current health state (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.77; standard gamble: 0.97). Lowest scores were elicited for the health state ‘irresectable tumour’ (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.13; standard gamble: 0.34). The Visual Analogue Scale method produced lower estimates (P<0.001) than the standard gamble method for all health states. Most patient characteristics and clinical factors did not correlate with the utilities. Ninety-five per cent of patients who underwent a transthoracic procedure and 52% of patients who underwent a transhiatal resection would prefer the transthoracic treatment. No significant associations between any patient characteristics or clinical characteristics and treatment preference were found. Utilities after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy were robust because they generally did not vary by patient or clinical characteristics. Overall, most patients preferred the transthoracic procedure