Search

Purpose: Understanding which factors are important for healthcare decisions of patients with diabetes in clinical practice is important to personalise diabetes care strategies and tailor care plans to the individual. The main drivers for these healthcare decisions remain unclear. This study assessed which key factors are relevant for healthcare decisions during clinical consultations for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM), according to healthcare professionals. Materials and Methods: Annual diabetes reviews were performed as part of a trial assessing the impact of a consultation model facilitating person-centred diabetes care in six hospital outpatient clinics. After each consultation, we asked healthcare professionals to choose a maximum of three out of 20 factors that were most relevant for healthcare decisions about treatment goals and the professional support needed during the upcoming year. Factors were characterised as either person or disease-related. Percentages reflect the number of annual diabetes reviews in which the key factor was reported. Results: Seventeen physicians and eight diabetes specialist nurses reported the key factors relevant for healthcare decisions in 285 annual diabetes reviews (T1DM n = 119, T2DM n = 166). Healthcare professionals most often reported quality of life (31.9%), motivation (27.0%) and diabetes self-management (25.6%), and to a lesser extent glycaemic control (24.2%), to be important for decisions about treatment goals. For decisions about the professional support needed during the upcoming year patient's preferences (33.7%), diabetes self-management (33.3%), quality of life (27.0%) and motivation (25.6%) were most often considered relevant by healthcare professionals. Conclusion: According to healthcare professionals, person-related factors such as quality of life, diabetes self-management and motivation are predominantly relevant for healthcare decisions about treatment goals and the professional support needed during the upcoming year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess the planned diabetes care for the coming year and its associated factors in patients with Type 2 diabetes who have a person-centered annual consultation. Methods: Implementation study of a new consultation model in 47 general practices (primary care) and 6 outpatient clinics (secondary care); 1200 patients from primary and 166 from secondary care participated. Data collection took place between November 2015 and February 2017. Outcomes: preferred monitoring frequency; referral to other health care provider(s); medication change. One measurement at the end of the consultation. We performed logistic regression analyses. Differences between primary and secondary care were analyzed. Results: Many patients arranged a monitoring frequency <4 times per year (general practices 19.5%, outpatient clinics 40%, p < .001). Type of provider (physician/nurse, OR 3.83, p < .001), baseline HbA1c (OR 1.02, p = .017), glucose lowering medication; and setting treatment goals (OR .65, p = .048) were associated with the chosen frequency. Independently associated with a referral were age (OR .99, p = .039), baseline glucose lowering medication and patients’ goal setting (OR 1.52, p = .016). Medication change was associated with type of provider, baseline HbA1c, blood glucose lowering medication, quality of life (OR .80, p = .037) and setting treatment goals (OR 2.64, p = .001). Conclusions: Not only disease but also person related factors, especially setting treatment goals, are independently associated with planned care use in person-centered diabetes care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We assessed both from a patient and provider perspective the usefulness and added value of a consultation model that facilitates person-centered diabetes care.Research Design and Methods: The model consists of 1) inventory of disease and patient-related factors; 2) setting personal goals; 3) choosing treatment; and 4) determination of required care. It was implemented in 47 general practices and 6 hospital outpatient clinics. Providers were trained, and patients were recommended to prepare their visit. All filled out a questionnaire after every consultation. Differences between primary and secondary care practices and between physician-led and nurse-led consultations were analyzed.Results: Seventy-four physicians and thirty-one nurses participated, reporting on 1,366 consultations with type 2 diabetes patients. According to providers, the model was applicable in 72.4% (nurses 79.3% vs. physicians 68.5%, P < 0.001). Physicians more often had a consultation time <25 min (80.4% vs. 56.9%, P < 0.001). According to providers, two of three patients spoke more than half of the consultation time (outpatient clinics 75.2% vs. general practices 66.6%, P = 0.002; nurses 73.2% vs. physicians 64.4%, P = 0.001). Providers stated that person-related factors often determined treatment goals. Almost all patients (94.4%) reported that they made shared decisions; they felt more involved than before (with physicians 45.1% vs. with nurses 33.6%, P < 0.001) and rated the consultation 8.6 of 10. After physician-led consultations, 52.5% reported that the consultation was better than before (nurse visit 33.7%, P < 0.001).Conclusions: A consultation model to facilitate person-centered care seems well applicable and results in more patient involvement, including shared decision making, and is appreciated by a substantial number of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Huisarts En Wetenschap is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Study Type - Prognosis (cohort series) Level of Evidence 2a What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The present study is one of the first to investigate urologists' and patients' compliance with recommendations based on a risk calculator that calculates the probability of indolent prostate cancer. A threshold was set for a recommendation of active surveillance vs active treatment. Active surveillance recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator were followed by most patients, but 30% with active treatment recommendations chose active surveillance instead. This indicates that the threshold may be too high for urologists and patients. OBJECTIVES To assess urologists' and patients' compliance with treatment recommendations based on a prostate cancer risk calculator (RC) and the reasons for non-compliance., To assess the difference between patients who were compliant and non-compliant with recommendations based on this RC., PATIENTS AND METHODS Eight urologists from five Dutch hospitals included 240 patients with prostate cancer (PCa), aged 55-75 years, from December 2008 to February 2011., The urologists used the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer RC which predicts the probability of potentially indolent PCa (P[indolent]), using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume and pathological findings on biopsy., Inclusion criteria were PSA <20 ng/mL, clinical stage T1 or T2a-c disease, <50% positive sextant biopsy cores, ≤20 mm cancer tissue, ≥40 mm benign tissue and Gleason ≤3 + 3. If the P(indolent) was >70%, active surveillance (AS) was recommended, and active treatment (AT) otherwise., After the treatment decision, patients completed a questionnaire about their treatment choice, related (dis)advantages, and validated measurements of other factors, e.g. anxiety., RESULTS Most patients (45/55, 82%) were compliant with an AS recommendation. Another 54 chose AS despite an AT recommendation (54/185, 29%)., The most common reason for non-compliance with AT recommendations by urologists was the patient's preference for AS ( n= 30). These patients most often reported the delay of physical side effects of AT as the main advantage ( n= 19)., Those who complied with AT recommendations had higher mean PSA levels (8 vs 7 ng/mL, P= 0.02), higher mean amount of cancer tissue (7 vs 3 mm, P < 0.001), lower mean P(indolent) (36% vs 55%, P < 0.001), and higher mean generic anxiety scores (42 vs 38, P= 0.03) than those who did not comply., CONCLUSIONS AS recommendations were followed by most patients, while 29% with AT recommendations chose AS instead., Although further research is needed to validate the RC threshold, the current version is already useful in treatment decision-making in men with localized PCa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Type - Diagnostic (cohort) Level of Evidence 2b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? So far, few publications have shown that a prediction model influences the behaviour of both physicians and patients. To our knowledge, it was unknown whether urologists and patients are compliant with the recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator and their reasons for non-compliance. Recommendations of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator (ERSPC RC) about the need of a prostate biopsy were followed in most patients. In most cases of non-compliance with 'no biopsy' recommendations, a PSA level ≥3 ng/mL was decisive to opt for biopsy. Before implementation of the ERSPC RC in urological practices at a large scale, it is important to obtain insight into the use of guidelines that might counteract the adoption of the use of the RC as a result of opposing recommendations. OBJECTIVES To assess both urologist and patient compliance with a 'no biopsy' or 'biopsy' recommendation of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) Risk Calculator (RC), as well as their reasons for non-compliance., To assess determinants of patient compliance., PATIENTS AND METHODS The ERSPC RC calculates the probability on a positive sextant prostate biopsy ( Pposb) using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, outcomes of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography, and ultrasonographically assessed prostate volume. A biopsy was recommended if Pposb≥20%., Between 2008 and 2011, eight urologists from five Dutch hospitals included 443 patients (aged 55-75 years) after a PSA test with no previous biopsy., Urologists calculated the Pposb using the RC in the presence of patients and completed a questionnaire about compliance., Patients completed a questionnaire about prostate cancer knowledge, attitude towards prostate biopsy, self-rated health (12-Item Short Form Health Survey), anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory-6, Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer) and decision-making measures (Decisional Conflict Scale)., RESULTS Both urologists and patients complied with the RC recommendation in 368 of 443 (83%) cases., If a biopsy was recommended, almost all patients (96%; 257/269) complied, although 63 of the 174 (36%) patients were biopsied against the recommendation of the RC., Compliers with a 'no biopsy' recommendation had a lower mean Pposb than non-compliers (9% vs 14%; P < 0.001)., Urologists opted for biopsies against the recommendations of the RC because of an elevated PSA level (≥3 ng/mL) (78%; 49/63) and patients because they wanted certainty (60%; 38/63)., CONCLUSIONS Recommendations of the ERSPC RC on prostate biopsy were followed in most patients., The RC hence may be a promising tool for supporting clinical decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Type – Survey (prospective cohort) Level of Evidence 1b OBJECTIVE To investigate the levels of knowledge of prostate cancer and the perception of active surveillance (AS) in men on AS, as AS for early prostate cancer instead of radical treatment might partly solve the over-treatment dilemma in this disease, but might be experienced as a complex and contradictory strategy by patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS In all, 150 Dutch men recently diagnosed with early prostate cancer participating in a prospective protocol-based AS programme (PRIAS study) received questionnaires, including a 15-item measure on their general knowledge of prostate cancer, and open-ended questions on the most important disadvantages and advantages of AS, and on the specific perception of AS. We assessed knowledge scores and explored potentially associated factors, the stated (dis)advantages and specific perceptions. RESULTS The questionnaire response rate was 86% (129/150). Participants provided correct answers to a median (interquartile range) of 13 (12–14) of 15 (87%) knowledge items. Younger and higher educated men had higher knowledge scores. In line with a priori hypotheses, the most frequently reported advantage and disadvantage of AS were the delay of side-effects and the risk of disease progression, respectively. Specific negative experiences included the feeling of losing control over treatment decisions, distress at follow-up visits, and the desire for a more active participation in disease management. No conceptually wrong understandings or expectations of AS were identified. CONCLUSIONS We found adequate knowledge of prostate cancer levels and realistic perceptions of the AS strategy in patients with early prostate cancer and on AS. These findings suggest adequate counselling by the physician or patient self-education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]