The mental well-being of Leiden University PhD candidates

Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

Het mentaal welzijn van Leidse promovendi

Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

Variation in test ordering behaviour of GPs: professional or context-related factors?

Objective. The aim of this study was to describe GPs' test ordering behaviour, and to establish professional and context-related determinants of GPs' inclination to order tests. Methods. A cross-sectional analysis was carried out of 229 GPs in 40 local GP groups from five regions in The Netherlands of the combined number of 19 laboratory and eight imaging tests ordered by GPs, collected from five regional diagnostic centres. In a multivariable multilevel regression analysis, these data were linked with survey data on professional characteristics such as knowledge about and attitude towards test ordering, and with data on context-related factors such as practice type or experience with feedback on test ordering data. The main outcome measure was the percentage point differences associated with professional and context-related factors. Results. The total median number of tests per GP per year was 998 (interquartile range 663-1500), with significant differences between the regions. The response to the survey was 97%. At the professional level, ‘individual involvement in developing guidelines' (yes versus no), and at the context-related level ‘group practice' (versus single-handed and two-person practices) and ‘more than 1 year of experience working with a problem-oriented laboratory order form' (yes versus no) were associated with 27, 18 and 41% lower numbers of tests ordered, respectively. Conclusion. In addition to professional determinants, context-related factors appeared to be strongly associated with the numbers of tests ordered. Further studies on GPs' test ordering behaviour should include local and regional factor

Gender sensitivity among general practitioners: Results of a training programme

Contains fulltext : 70167.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Gender differences contribute to patients' health and illness. However in current healthcare practices attention to gender differences is still underdeveloped. Recognizing these differences and taking them into account can improve the quality of care. In this study we aimed to investigate whether GPs' gender sensitivity can be stimulated by a training programme. The focus was on three diseases: angina pectoris, depression and urinary incontinence. METHODS: This study had a quantitative, explorative and descriptive design. By means of a training programme 18 GPs were trained to focus on gender-sensitive recommendations for the three diseases. With standardised registration forms, data were collected during a 6-month period. During the registration period, the GPs were visited by the study team to discuss the process of data collection. RESULTS: The GPs filled in registration forms for 100 patients: 39 with angina pectoris (31 women and 8 men), 40 with depression (26 women and 14 men), and 21 with urinary incontinence (20 women and 1 man). The results show that gender sensitivity can be stimulated among trained professionals. The combination of the training programme, clear and practical recommendations, daily discussion of relevant cases between the GP couples, feedback and support during registration by the study team probably contributed to the outcome. CONCLUSION: GPs' gender sensitivity was stimulated by the training programme and the supporting visits. Ideally, structural attention could be realised by embedding gender issues in existing organisational structures of general practices

The changing role of funders in responsible research assessment : progress, obstacles and the way ahead

The research community has responded to the COVID-19 crisis with speed, creativity and innovation. But the pandemic has also shone fresh light on the inner workings of research, and has intensified scrutiny of how research is funded, practiced, disseminated and evaluated, and how research cultures can be made more open, inclusive and impactful. The uncertain possibilities of the present follow a period in which concern has intensified over long-standing concerns over aspects of research assessment. As attention shifts from describing these problems, towards designing and implementing solutions, efforts are now coalescing around the idea of responsible research assessment (RRA). This is an umbrella term for approaches to assessment which incentivise, reflect and reward the plural characteristics of high-quality research, in support of diverse and inclusive research cultures. This working paper explores what RRA is, and where it comes from, by outlining fifteen initiatives that have influenced the shape and direction of current RRA debates. It goes on to describe the responses that these have elicited, with a particular focus on the role and contribution of research funders, who have more freedom and agency to experiment and initiate change than other actors in research systems. The paper also presents the findings of a survey of RRA policies and practices in the participant organisations of the Global Research Council (GRC)—mainly national public funding agencies—with responses from 55 organisations worldwide. Published to coincide with a November 2020 Global Research Council (GRC) virtual conference on responsible research assessment—and co-authored by a team drawn from the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), Research on Research Institute (RoRI), CWTS-Leiden and National Research Foundation of South Africa,—the paper serves as a primer for the RRA agenda as it intensifies worldwide

Blood test ordering for unexplained complaints in general practice: the VAMPIRE randomised clinical trial protocol. [ISRCTN55755886]

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) frequently order blood tests when they see patients presenting with unexplained complaints. Due to the low prevalence of serious pathology in general practice, the risk of false-positive test results is relatively high. This may result in unnecessary further testing, leading to unfavourable effects such as patient anxiety, high costs, somatisation and morbidity. A policy of watchful waiting is expected to lower both the number of patients to be tested and the risk of false-positive test results, without missing serious pathology. However, many general practitioners experience barriers when trying to postpone blood testing by watchful waiting. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the accuracy of blood tests in patients presenting with unexplained complaints in terms of detecting pathology, (2) to determine the accuracy of a watchful waiting strategy and (3) to determine the effects of a quality improvement strategy to promote the postponement of blood test ordering by GPs for patients with unexplained complaints. DESIGN: General practices are randomised over three groups. Group 1 is instructed to order blood tests immediately, group 2 to apply a watchful waiting policy and group 3 also to postpone testing, but supported by our quality improvement strategy. The trial consists of two sub-studies: a diagnostic study at patient level (group 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and a quality improvement study at GP level (group 2 versus group 3). The diagnostic strategy to be used involves of both customary and innovative tests. The quality improvement strategy consists of two small-group meetings and a practice outreach visit. Patient follow-up ends at 12 months after the initial consultation. Primary outcome measures are the accuracy and added value of blood tests for detecting pathology, the effect of a 4-week postponement of test ordering on the blood test characteristics and the quantity of tests ordered. Secondary outcome measures are the course of complaints, quality of life, satisfaction with care, anxiety of patients and practitioners, determinants of physicians' behaviour, health care utilisation and costs. DISCUSSION: The innovative aspect of this trial is that it combines a clinical-epidemiological study and a quality of care study

The effect of watchful waiting compared to immediate test ordering instructions on general practitioners' blood test ordering behaviour for patients with unexplained complaints; a randomized clinical trial (ISRCTN55755886)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Immediate blood testing for patients presenting with unexplained complaints in family practice is superfluous from a diagnostic point of view. However, many general pracitioners (GPs) order tests immediately. Watchful waiting reduces the number of patients to be tested and the number of false-positive results. The objectives of this study are: to determine the feasibility of watchful waiting compared to immediate test ordering; to determine if a special quality improvement strategy can improve this feasibility; and to determine if watchful waiting leads to testing at a later time.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study is a cluster-randomized clinical trial with three groups, on blood test ordering strategies in patients with unexplained complaints. GPs in group one were instructed to order tests immediately and GPs in group two to apply a watchful waiting approach. GPs in group three received the same instruction as group two, but they were supported by a systematically designed quality improvement strategy. A total of 498 patients with unexplained complaints from 63 practices of Dutch GPs participated. We measured: the percentage of patients for whom tests were ordered and number of tests ordered at the first consultation; performance on the strategy's performance objectives (i.e., ordering fewer tests and specific communication skills); the number of tests ordered after four weeks; and GP and patient characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Immediate test ordering proved feasible in 92% of the patients; watchful waiting in 86% and 84%, respectively, for groups two and three. The two watchful waiting groups did not differ significantly in the achievement of any of the performance objectives. Of the patients who returned after four weeks, none from group one and six from the two watchful waiting groups had tests ordered for them.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Watchful waiting is a feasible approach. It does not lead to testing immediately afterwards. Furthermore, watchful waiting was not improved by the quality improvement strategy.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinical trial registration: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN55755886">ISRCTN55755886</a></p

Defining antimicrobial prescribing quality indicators: what is a new prescription?

Contains fulltext : 95791.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access): Since guidelines on antibiotic drug treatment often focus on appropriate first choice drugs, assessment of guideline adherence should only concentrate on the first drug prescribed, and not on subsequent antibiotics prescribed after failure of the first one. PURPOSE: To determine a valid cut-off point for a definition of "first" or "new" prescription in indicators for the assessment of the quality of antibiotic drug treatment on the basis of pharmaceutical data. METHODS: Three possible definitions for the term "new prescription" were compared, based on three different periods of time, viz. more than 35, 28, or 21 days after starting a previous antibiotic. In an observational study, 1,225 antimicrobial prescriptions from the medical files of five family practices were audited ("clinical classification") and compared with a classification based on the three definitions ("technical classification"). Agreement between these clinical and technical classifications was determined by calculating Cohen's kappa. The technical classification was analyzed as a diagnostic test, using the clinical classification as the gold standard, and sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and post-test probabilities were calculated. RESULTS: Defining "new prescription" as "more than 35 days after a previous prescription was issued" resulted in a Cohen's kappa of 0.93 (95% CI 0.92-0.98). The diagnostic value of this definition was extremely high, with a sensitivity of 0.976, specificity of 0.987, positive likelihood ratio of 77.7, and negative likelihood ratio of 0.02. CONCLUSION: We recommend using a cut-off value of 35 days since the last antimicrobial prescription as the definition of a "new prescription" when no diagnostic information is available, i.e., when using pharmaceutical data to assess the quality of antibiotic prescribing behavior.01 januari 201

Autoantibodies to Osteoprotegerin are Associated with Low Hip Bone Mineral Density and History of Fractures in Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

Osteoporosis is a recognised complication of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and is thought to be due to functional impairment and the osteoclast-activating effects of proinflammatory cytokines. The development of autoantibodies to OPG (OPG-Ab) has been associated with severe osteoporosis and increased bone resorption in rheumatoid arthritis. In this study, we screened for the presence of OPG-Ab in axSpA and reviewed their clinical significance. We studied 134 patients, recruited from two centres in the United Kingdom. Their mean age was 47.5 years and 75% were male. Concentrations of OPG-Ab were related to bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture history using linear and logistic regression models adjusting for age, gender, disease duration and activity, body mass index and bisphosphonate use. We detected OPG-Ab in 11/134 patients (8.2%). Femoral neck and total hip BMD were significantly reduced in OPG-Ab positive patients (0.827 vs. 0.967 g/cm2, p = 0.008 and 0.868 vs. 1.028 g/cm2, p = 0.002, respectively). Regression analysis showed that the presence of OPG-Ab was independently associated with total hip osteopenia (ORadj 24.2; 95% CI 2.57, 228) and history of fractures (ORadj 10.5; 95% CI 2.07, 53.3). OPG-Ab concentration was associated with total hip BMD in g/cm2 (ß = −1.15; 95% CI −0.25, −0.04). There were no associations between OPG-Ab concentration and bone turnover markers, but free sRANKL concentrations were lower in OPG-Ab-positive patients (median 0.04 vs. 0.11 pmol/L, p = 0.050). We conclude that OPG-Ab are associated with hip BMD and fractures in axSpA suggesting that they may contribute to the pathogenesis of bone loss in some patients with this condition

Impact of measured versus estimated glomerular filtration rate-based screening on living kidney donor characteristics:A study of multiple cohorts

Background Most transplant centers in the Netherlands use estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for evaluation of potential living kidney donors. Whereas eGFR often underestimates GFR, especially in healthy donors, measured GFR (mGFR) allows more precise kidney function assessment, and therefore holds potential to increase the living donor pool. We hypothesized that mGFR-based donor screening leads to acceptance of donors with lower predonation eGFR than eGFR-based screening. Methods In this longitudinal cohort study, we compared eGFR (CKD-EPI) before donation in one center using mGFR-based screening (mGFR-cohort, n = 250) with two centers using eGFR-based screening (eGFR-cohort1, n = 466 and eGFR-cohort2, n = 160). We also compared differences in eGFR at five years after donation. Results Donor age was similar among the cohorts (mean±standard deviation (SD) mGFR-cohort 53 ±10 years, eGFR-cohort1 52±13 years, P = 0.16 vs. mGFR-cohort, and eGFR-cohort2 53±9 years, P = 0.61 vs. mGFR-cohort). Estimated GFR underestimated mGFR by 10±12 mL/ min/1.73m2 (mean±SD), with more underestimation in younger donors. In the overall cohorts, mean±SD pre-donation eGFR was lower in the mGFR-cohort (91±13 mL/min/ 1.73m2) than in eGFR-cohort1 (93±15 mL/min/1.73m2, P<0.05) and eGFR-cohort2 (94±12 mL/min/1.73m2, P<0.05). However, these differences disappeared when focusing on more recent years, which can be explained by acceptance of more older donors with lower predonation eGFR over time in both eGFR-cohorts. Five years post-donation, mean±SD eGFR was similar among the centers (mGFR-cohort 62±12 mL/min/1.73m2, eGFR-cohort1 61±14 mL/min/1.73m2, eGFR-cohort2 62±11 mL/min/1.73m2, P = 0.76 and 0.95 vs. mGFR-cohort respectively). In the mGFR-cohort, 38 (22%) donors were excluded from donation due to insufficient mGFR with mean±SD mGFR of 71±9 mL/min/1.73m2. Conclusions Despite the known underestimation of mGFR by eGFR, we did not show that the routine use of mGFR in donor screening leads to inclusion of donors with a lower pre-donation eGFR. Therefore eGFR-based screening will be sufficient for the majority of the donors. Future studies should investigate whether there is a group (e.g. young donors with insufficient eGFR) that might benefit from confirmatory mGFR testing