Overweight and obese adults have low intentions of seeking weight-related care:A cross-sectional survey

Background The prevalence of obesity is growing worldwide. Obesity guidelines recommend increasing the level of weight-related care for persons with elevated levels of weight-related health risk (WRHR). However, there seems to be a discrepancy between need for and use of weight-related care. The primary aim of this study is to examine predisposing factors that may influence readiness to lose weight and intention to use weight-related care in an overweight population. Methods A population-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted. Data were collected using an online self-administered questionnaire sent to a population-representative sample of 1,500 Dutch adults on the Health Care Consumer Panel (n = 861 responded). Data were used from individuals (n = 445) with a mildly, moderately or severely elevated level of WRHR. WRHR status was based on self-reported data on Body Mass Index, risk assessment for diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), or co-morbidities. Results 55.1% of persons with increased WRHR were ready to lose weight (n = 245). Depending on level of WRHR; educational level, marital status, individuals with an accurate perception of their weight and better perceptions and expectations of dietitians were significantly related to readiness to lose weight. Most of them preferred individual weight-loss methods (82.0% of n = 245). 11% (n = 26 of n = 245) intended to use weight-related care. Weight-related care seeking was higher for those with moderate or severe WRHR. Expectations and trust in dietitians did not seem to influence care seeking. Conclusions Many Dutch adults who are medically in need of weight-related care are ready to lose weight. Most intend to lose weight individually, and only a few intend to use weight-related care. Therefore, obesity prevention initiatives should focus on monitoring weight change and weight-loss plans, and timely referral to obesity management. However, many people are not ready to lose weight. For this group, strategies for behaviour change may depend on WRHR, perceptions of weight and dietitians, educational level and marital status. Obesity prevention initiatives should focus on increasing the awareness of the seriousness of their condition and offering individually appropriate weight management programmes. Keywords: Overweight, Obesity, Weight change, Patient’s acceptance of health care, Perception, Dietary service

One in six physiotherapy practices in primary care offer musculoskeletal ultrasound - an explorative survey

BACKGROUND: The first aim of this research was to investigate the current prevalence of musculoskeletal ultrasound in Dutch physiotherapy practices. The second aim was to explore experiences of physiotherapists with musculoskeletal ultrasound in a primary care setting with patients presenting with shoulder complaints. METHODS: A random sample of 1000 owners of primary care physiotherapy practices was sent a questionnaire to investigate the prevalence of musculoskeletal ultrasound. A second questionnaire was sent to physiotherapists using musculoskeletal ultrasound to explore experiences with it in patients with shoulder complaints. RESULTS: The net response rate of the first questionnaire was 57.7%. In 18% of the physiotherapy practices musculoskeletal ultrasound was offered. Sixty-nine physiotherapists returned the second questionnaire. Physiotherapists indicated they most often used musculoskeletal ultrasound in patients with shoulder complaints, mainly for suspected tissue damage (83.7%), followed by making a diagnosis (63.3%) and for determining the choice of treatment (36.7%). Physiotherapists reported the biggest advantage was that they were better able to diagnose presenting shoulder complaints. The most frequently mentioned disadvantage of the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound was that assessment is difficult and that there is a risk that findings may not be sufficiently linked to history and physical examination. CONCLUSION: One in six physiotherapy practices in the Netherlands offer musculoskeletal ultrasound. It is mainly used for patients with shoulder complaints, with an emphasis on detecting tissue damage and as an aid for diagnosis. Physiotherapists trained to work with musculoskeletal ultrasound seem enthusiastic and are at the same time aware of it

eLabEL: Technology-supported living labs in primary care

Telecare technologies and eHealth applications can support patients and care professionals. However, these technologies are currently not being implemented in primary care. The eLabEL project aims to contribute to a solution for this problem by establishing Living Labs in which patients, healthcare professionals, entrepreneurs and researchers collaborate during the selection, integration, implementation and evaluation of such technologies in primary care. So far, seven primary care centers across the Netherlands have been included. Needs and requirements of healthcare professionals and patients regarding telecare technologies and eHealth applications were studied using semi-structured interviews and focus group interviews respectively. Healthcare professionals and patients were positive towards the use of technologies that can improve accessibility of care for the entire patient population and also expressed a need for technologies that can support self-management in patients with chronic conditions. Requirements voiced by care professionals were the need for clear organization of the user-interface, availability of workflow directives for eHealth usage, minimal steps to perform a task, and integration with their current information system. Patients indicated that care technology should be easy to use and easy to learn, should provide real-time feedback based on self-measured data, and should improve communication between patients and healthcare professionals. Entrepreneurs from the eLabEL consortium will integrate their eHealth and telecare services to meet the requirements of the end-users. The large scale implementation of these technologies will be monitored and the impact on experiences of patients, professionals and organization of care will be studied during a two-year follow-up study. Stakeholders of the eLabEL consortium will join forces to advance the large scale implementation of telecare technologies and eHealth applications in primary care

What factors explain the number of physical therapy treatment sessions in patients referred with low back pain; a multilevel analysis

BACKGROUND: It is well-known that the number of physical therapy treatment sessions varies over treatment episodes. Information is lacking, however, on the source and explanation of the variation. The purposes of the current study are: 1) to determine how the variance in the number of physical therapy treatment sessions in patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands is distributed over patient level, therapist level and practice level; and 2) to determine the factors that explain the variance. METHODS: Data were used from a national registration network on physical therapy. Our database contained information on 1,733 patients referred with LBP, treated by 97 therapists working in 41 practices. The variation in the number of treatment sessions was investigated by means of multilevel regression analyses. RESULTS: Eighty-eight per cent of the variation in the number of treatment sessions for patients with LBP is located at patient level and seven per cent is located at practice level. It was possible to explain thirteen per cent of all variance. The duration of the complaint, prior therapy, and the patients' age and gender in particular are related to the number of physical therapy treatment sessions. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the number of physical therapy treatment sessions in patients with LBP mainly depends on patient characteristics. More variation needs to be explained, however, to improve the transparency of care. Future research should examine the contribution of psychosocial factors, baseline disability, and the ability to learn motor behavior as possible factors in the variation in treatment sessions

What part of the total care consumed by type 2 diabetes patients is directly related to diabetes? Implications for disease management programs

<p><strong>Background</strong>: Disease management programs (DMP) aim at improving coordination and quality of care and reducing healthcare costs for specific chronic diseases. This paper investigates to what extent total healthcare utilization of type 2 diabetes patients is actually related to diabetes and its implications for diabetes management programs.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods:</strong> Healthcare utilization for diabetes patients was analyzed using 2008 self-reported data (N=316) and data from electronic medical records (EMR) (N=9023), and divided whether or not care was described in the Dutch type 2 diabetes multidisciplinary healthcare standard.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> On average 4.3 different disciplines of healthcare providers were involved in the care for diabetes patients. 96% contacted a GP-practice and 63% an ophthalmologist, 24% an internist, 32% a physiotherapist and 23% a dietician. Diabetes patients had on average 9.3 contacts with GP-practice of which 53% were included in the healthcare standard. Only a limited part of total healthcare utilization of diabetes patients was included in the healthcare standard and therefore theoretically included in DMPs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Organizing the care for diabetics in a DMP might harm the coordination and quality of all healthcare for diabetics. DMPs should be integrated in the overall organization of care.</p

Comparing patient characteristics and treatment processes in patients receiving physical therapy in the United States, Israel and the Netherlands. Cross sectional analyses of data from three clinical databases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many assume that outcomes from physical therapy research in one country can be generalized to other countries. However, no well designed studies comparing outcomes among countries have been conducted. In this exploratory study, our goal was to compare patient demographics and treatment processes in outpatient physical therapy practice in the United States, Israel and the Netherlands.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional data from three different clinical databases were examined. Data were selected for patients aged 18 years and older and started an episode of outpatient therapy between January 1^st2005 and December 31^st2005. Results are based on data from approximately 63,000 patients from the United States, 100,000 from Israel and 12,000 from the Netherlands.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Age, gender and the body part treated were similar in the three countries. Differences existed in episode duration of the health problem, with more patients with chronic complaints treated in the United States and Israel compared to the Netherlands. In the United States and Israel, physical agents and mechanical modalities were applied more often than in the Netherlands. The mean number of visits per treatment episode, adjusted for age, gender, and episode duration, varied from 8 in Israel to 11 in the United States and the Netherlands.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The current study showed that clinical databases can be used for comparing patient demographic characteristics and for identifying similarities and differences among countries in physical therapy practice. However, terminology used to describe treatment processes and classify patients was different among databases. More standardisation is required to enable more detailed comparisons. Nevertheless the differences found in number of treatment visits per episode imply that one has to be careful to generalize outcomes from physical therapy research from one country to another.</p

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments:an overview of reviews

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.METHODS: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings.RESULTS: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.CONCLUSION: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.</p

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments:an overview of reviews

Purpose: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.Methods: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies’ findings.Results: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.Conclusion: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments:an overview of reviews

Purpose: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.Methods: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies’ findings.Results: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.Conclusion: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed

Lessons learned from a living lab on the broad adoption of eHealth in primary health care

Background: Electronic health (eHealth) solutions are considered to relieve current and future pressure on the sustainability of primary health care systems. However, evidence of the effectiveness of eHealth in daily practice is missing. Furthermore, eHealth solutions are often not implemented structurally after a pilot phase, even if successful during this phase. Although many studies on barriers and facilitators were published in recent years, eHealth implementation still progresses only slowly. To further unravel the slow implementation process in primary health care and accelerate the implementation of eHealth, a 3-year Living Lab project was set up. In the Living Lab, called eLabEL, patients, health care professionals, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and research institutes collaborated to select and integrate fully mature eHealth technologies for implementation in primary health care. Seven primary health care centers, 10 SMEs, and 4 research institutes participated. Objective: This viewpoint paper aims to show the process of adoption of eHealth in primary care from the perspective of different stakeholders in a qualitative way. We provide a real-world view on how such a process occurs, including successes and failures related to the different perspectives. Methods: Reflective and process-based notes from all meetings of the project partners, interview data, and data of focus groups were analyzed systematically using four theoretical models to study the adoption of eHealth in primary care. Results: The results showed that large-scale implementation of eHealth depends on the efforts of and interaction and collaboration among 4 groups of stakeholders: patients, health care professionals, SMEs, and those responsible for health care policy (health care insurers and policy makers). These stakeholders are all acting within their own contexts and with their own values and expectations. We experienced that patients reported expected benefits regarding the use of eHealth for self-management purposes, and health care professionals stressed the potential benefits of eHealth and were interested in using eHealth to distinguish themselves from other care organizations. In addition, eHealth entrepreneurs valued the collaboration among SMEs as they were not big enough to enter the health care market on their own and valued the collaboration with research institutes. Furthermore, health care insurers and policy makers shared the ambition and need for the development and implementation of an integrated eHealth infrastructure. Conclusions: For optimal and sustainable use of eHealth, patients should be actively involved, primary health care professionals need to be reinforced in their management, entrepreneurs should work closely with health care professionals and patients, and the government needs to focus on new health care models stimulating innovations. Only when all these parties act together, starting in local communities with a small range of eHealth tools, the potential of eHealth will be enforced