Search

Background: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool was developed to optimise chronic care., Objectives: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the ABCC-tool in patients with COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and/or heart failure in primary care in the Netherlands., Methods: The study had a pragmatic, clustered, two-armed, quasi-experimental design. The intervention group (41 general practices; 176 patients) used the ABCC-tool during routine consultations and the control group (14 general practices; 61 patients) received usual care. The primary outcome was a change in perceived quality of care (PACIC; Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care) after 18 months. Secondary outcomes included change in the PACIC after 6 and 12 months, and in quality of life (EQ-5D-5L; EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICECAP-A; ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), and patients' activation (PAM; Patient Activation Measure) after 6, 12, and 18 months for the total group and conditions separately., Results: We observed a significant difference in the PACIC after 6, 12, and 18 months (18 months: 0.388 points; 95%CI: 0.089-0.687; p  = 0.011) for the total group and after 6 and 12 months for type 2 diabetes. After 18 months, we observed a significant difference in the PAM for the total group but not at 6 and 12 months, and not for type 2 diabetes. All significant effects were in favour of the intervention group. No significant differences were found for the EQ-5D-5L and the ICECAP-A., Conclusion: Use of the ABCC-tool has a positive effect on perceived quality of care and patients' activation, which makes the tool ready for use in clinical practice. Healthcare providers (e.g. general practitioners and practice nurses) can use the tool to provide person-centred care. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383).

Background: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC-)tool is developed to facilitate a personalized approach to care in the patient-healthcare provider (HCP) conversation based on shared decision-making and individualized care plans. An effectiveness study highlighted its effect on the perceived quality of care and patient activation. Successful implementation of novel interventions necessitates an understanding of the user's actual application, user experiences and an evaluation of implementation outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of the ABCC-tool by HCPs in Dutch primary care., Methods: This study is the process evaluation of a larger type 1 effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial. Semi-structured interviews with HCPs, who were interventionists in the hybrid trial, were held at three and twelve months after they started using the ABCC-tool. The Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to evaluate implementation outcomes. The Implementation domain was further strengthened with an evaluation of implementation fidelity using Carroll's framework. Inductive coding and thematic analysis were applied to identify relevant participant experiences and implementation outcomes within the RE-AIM framework., Results: Seventeen HCPs (1 general practitioner, 16 practice nurses) participated in the study, representing 39% of potentially eligible participants. Most HCPs applied the tool after finishing their own routines instead of how it is intended to be used, namely from the beginning of the consultation. HCPs reached 2-6 patients. The ABCC-tool was initially adopted, but twelve HCPs stopped using the tool due to COVID-19 related cancellation of consultations. High fidelity was found for applying the questionnaire and visualization. Low fidelity was present for applying shared decision-making, formulating care goals and monitoring progress. HCPs indicated that maintaning the ABCC-tool depended on accompanying training and implementation support., Conclusions: HCPs applied the ABCC-tool critically different from intended, potentially diminishing its benefits and ease of use. This evaluation stresses the need for a tailored implementation plan that includes more detailed training and guidance on how and when to use the ABCC-tool., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool is developed and validated to support and facilitate a personalised approach to care for people with chronic conditions. The benefit of using the ABCC-tool greatly depends on how it is implemented. To enable a deeper understanding of when, how and by whom the ABCC-tool is used, this study protocol describes the design of an implementation study in which the context, experiences and implementation process of the ABCC-tool by primary care healthcare providers (HCPs) in the Netherlands will be investigated., Methods and Analysis: This protocol describes an implementation study alongside an effectiveness trial, in which the ABCC-tool is evaluated in general practices. The implementation strategy of the tool in the trial confines to providing written information and an instruction video explaining the technical use of the ABCC-tool. The outcomes include a description of: (1) the barriers and facilitators of HCPs for implementation of the ABCC-tool, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and (2) the implementation outcomes guided by the Reach-Effect-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework Carroll's fidelity framework. All outcomes will be gathered through individual semistructured interviews throughout 12 months of use. Interviews will be audiorecorded and transcribed. Transcripts will be analysed using content analysis for identifying barriers and facilitators (based on CFIR) and thematic analyses of HCPs' experiences (based on the RE-AIM and the fidelity frameworks)., Ethics and Dissemination: The presented study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Zuyderland Hospital, Heerlen (METCZ20180131). Written informed consent is mandatory prior to participation in the study. The results from the study in this protocol will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool was developed to improve care by facilitating shared decision making and self-management. It assesses and visualizes the experienced burden of 1 or multiple chronic conditions and integrates it in daily care. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the ABCC scale is valid and reliable in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, or type 2 diabetes (T2D)., Methods: The Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the Standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S), and the Audit of Diabetes Dependent Quality of Life Questionnaire (ADDQoL19) were compared with the ABCC scale to assess convergent validity. The internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's α . Test-retest reliability was evaluated at a 2-week interval., Results: A total of 65 people with COPD, 62 with asthma, and 60 with T2D were included. The ABCC scale correlated, in accordance with hypotheses, with the SGRQ (75% of correlations ≥0.7), AQLQ-S (100%), and ADDQoL19 (75%). The ABCC scale was internally consistent with a Cronbach's α of 0.90, 0.92, and 0.91 for the total score for people with COPD, asthma, and T2D, respectively. The ABCC scale had a good test-retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.95, 0.93, and 0.95 for people with COPD, asthma, and T2D, respectively., Conclusions: The ABCC scale is a valid and reliable questionnaire that can be used within the ABCC tool for people with COPD, asthma, or T2D. Future research should indicate whether this applies to people with multimorbidity, and what the effects and experiences are upon clinical use., (© 2023 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

2·6 billion people rely on solid fuels for cooking or heating. Accelerating access to cleaner solutions is crucial to reduce the negative effects of solid fuel use. Despite abundant evidence on how to implement these solutions, previous attempts have been disappointing. An overview of the evidence is missing and the translation of the evidence into practice is poor. We conducted an umbrella review using eight databases to: consolidate evidence on the factors that influence the implementation of improved solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels in low-income and middle-income countries; weigh the level of confidence in existing evidence; and develop two practical implementation strategy tools. We identified 31 relevant reviews (13 systematic reviews and 18 narrative reviews) that covered over 479 primary studies. We found 15 implementation factors supported by the highest level of evidence. Regarding improved solid fuel cookstoves, these factors included: cost; knowledge and beliefs about the innovation; and compatibility. For clean fuels these factors included: cost; knowledge and beliefs about the innovation; and external policy and incentives. The factors were synthesised into the Cleaner Cookstove Implementation Tool and the Clean Fuel Implementation Tool. These tools can be used to optimise the implementation of cleaner cooking solutions, thereby improving health, environmental, climate, and gender equity outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EABo is part-time employed at the Dutch Spark for Clean Cooking Solutions. Other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Over a third of the world's population relies on solid fuels as their primary energy source. These fuels have damaging effects on health, air quality and forest resources. Interventions to promote access to cleaner solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels have existed for decades. However, the adoption by local communities has largely failed, which led to a waste of resources and suboptimal outcomes. Therefore, the objective of this umbrella review is to identify factors that determine implementation success for cleaner cooking interventions in low-resource settings and weigh their level of confidence in the evidence., Methods and Analysis: We identified systematic and narrative reviews examining factors that influence the acquisition, initial adoption or sustained use of cleaner solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels at any scale by a literature search in PubMed, Embase, Global Health Database, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Emcare, Web of Science and CINAHL, without date or language restrictions. The search was conducted on 23 October 2017 and updated on 10 July 2019. Reviews based on qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies were included and will be appraised using the Meta Quality Appraisal Tool combined with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. Data will be extracted and factors affecting implementation will be coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool will be used to determine the level of confidence in the coded factors. Two researchers will independently conduct these steps., Ethics and Dissemination: This umbrella review does not require the approval of an ethical review board. Study results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The outcomes will be converted into two practical tools: one for cleaner solid fuel cookstoves and one for clean fuels. These tools can guide the development of evidence-based implementation strategies for cleaner cooking interventions in low-income and middle-income countries to improve implementation success. These tools should be pilot-tested and promoted among regional and global initiatives., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018088687., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The number of people that have one or multiple condition(s) with a chronic course is rising, which consequently challenges healthcare systems. Healthcare geared to long-term care should focus on patient-centredness, shared decision making and self-management. The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool was developed to integrate these elements in daily healthcare practice. The ABCC tool assesses and visualises burden of disease(s), helps to make shared decisions and stimulates self-management. The present paper documents a protocol for a quasi-experimental study investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ABCC tool for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or heart failure., Methods and Analysis: The study has a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental design and will be conducted in the Netherlands. The intervention will be allocated at the level of general practice. The intervention group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will use the ABCC tool during regular consultations; the control group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will maintain usual care. Outcomes include change in quality of care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), quality of life (EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), patients' activation (Patient Activation Measure) and costs. Follow-up time will be 18 months. Outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee Zuyderland-Zuyd Heerlen, the Netherlands (METCZ20180131). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at national and international conferences., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Evidence supports the link between air pollution and COVID-19 and thus it is likely that exposure to biomass smoke is associated with COVID-19. The poor, including refugees and migrant workers staying in fragile conditions, are most vulnerable. An outbreak of COVID-19 in a place where the concept of physical distancing is next to impossible could easily overwhelm the public health system. It is thus essential to understand the consequences of being exposed to smoke in relation to COVID-19 infection., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests None., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Numerous instruments have been developed to assess patient reported outcomes; most approaches however focus on a single condition. With the increasing prevalence of multimorbidity, this might no longer be appropriate. Moreover, a more comprehensive approach that facilitates shared decision making and stimulates self-management is most likely more valuable for clinical practice than a questionnaire alone. This study aims to transform the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (ABC)-tool into the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool for COPD, asthma, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). The tool consists of a scale, a visualisation of the outcomes, and treatment advice., Methods: Requirements for the tool were formulated. Questionnaires were developed based on a literature study of existing questionnaires, clinical guidelines, interviews with patients and healthcare providers, and input from an expert group. Cut-off points and treatment advice were determined to display the results and to provide practical recommendations., Results: The ABCC-scale consists of a generic questionnaire and disease-specific questionnaires, which can be combined into a single individualized questionnaire for each patient. Results are displayed in one balloon chart, and each domain includes practical recommendations., Conclusions: The ABCC-tool is expected to facilitate conversations between a patient and a healthcare provider, and to help formulate treatment plans and care plans with personalised goals. By facilitating an integrated approach, this instrument can be applied in a variety of circumstances and disease combinations.

Background: The consumption of nuts has been associated with a reduction of cancer risk, but only a few studies have examined the effects of nuts on prostate cancer risk. The current study prospectively investigated the association between the consumption of total nuts, tree nuts, peanuts, and peanut butter and the risk of total, advanced, and non-advanced prostate cancer., Methods: The association between nuts and prostate cancer was evaluated in the Netherlands Cohort Study, which was conducted among 58,279 men aged 55-69 year at baseline. A case-cohort approach was used for data processing and analyses. After 20.3 years of follow-up, 3868 incident prostate cancer cases and 1979 subcohort members were available for multivariable Cox regression analyses., Results: For total, advanced, and non-advanced prostate cancer, no significant associations were found for total nuts (total prostate cancer: hazard ratio (HR) (95%CI) for 10+ g/day vs. non-consumers = 1.09 (0.92-1.29), P trend  = 0.409). No significant associations were observed for tree nuts and peanuts for total, advanced, and non-advanced prostate cancer risk. Peanut butter consumption was associated with a significantly increased risk of non-advanced prostate cancer (HR (95%CI) for 5+ g/day vs. non-consumers = 1.33 (1.08-1.63), P trend  = 0.008), but not with total or advanced prostate cancer., Conclusions: No significant associations were found between total nut, tree nut, and peanut consumption and total, advanced, and non-advanced prostate cancer. Peanut butter might be associated with an increased non-advanced prostate cancer risk.

Limited evidence is available about (non)-representativeness of participants in health-promoting interventions. The Dutch Healthy Primary School of the Future (HPSF)-study is a school-based study aiming to improve health through altering physical activity and dietary behaviour, that started in 2015 (registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 14-06-2016, NCT02800616). The study has a response rate of 60%. A comprehensive non-responder analysis was carried out, and responders were compared with schoolchildren from the region and the Netherlands using a cross-sectional design. External sources were consulted to collect non-responder, regional, and national data regarding relevant characteristics including sex, demographics, health, and lifestyle. The Chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, or Student's t -test were used to analyse differences. The analyses showed that responders ( n  = 494) were comparable with non-responders ( n  = 348) and regional data ( n  = 6172) with regard to sex and health. Responders did not significantly differ from regional data with regard to lifestyle. Responders had significantly higher educated parents compared to non-responders and were more often of autochthonous ethnicity compared to regional data. Major differences were observed between responders and schoolchildren in the Netherlands, regarding, among others sex, ethnicity, and parental employment rates. We conclude that a potential healthy-volunteer effect in the HPSF-sample is limited. External validity is high when compared to the regional population but low when compared to the national sample. For future intervention studies, we advise to evaluate outcome measures according to regional/national standards and to cooperate with external parties in early stages of research to be able to assess and enhance generalisability.

Objectives: Improved biomass cookstoves may help reduce the substantial global burden of morbidity and mortality due to household air pollution (HAP) that disproportionately affects women and children in low and middle income countries (LMICs)., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of (quasi-)experimental studies identified from 13 electronic databases (last update: 6 April 2018), reference and citation searches and via expert consultation., Setting: LMICs PARTICIPANTS: Women and children INTERVENTIONS: Improved biomass cookstoves MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Low birth weight (LBW), preterm birth, perinatal mortality, paediatric acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and COPD among women., Results: We identified 53 eligible studies, including 24 that met prespecified design criteria. Improved cookstoves had no demonstrable impact on paediatric lower ARIs (three studies; 11 560 children; incidence rate ratio (IRR)=1.02 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.24)), severe pneumonia (two studies; 11 061 children; IRR=0.88 (95% CI 0.39 to 2.01)), LBW (one study; 174 babies; OR=0.74 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.66)) or miscarriages, stillbirths and infant mortality (one study; 1176 babies; risk ratio (RR) change=15% (95% CI -13 to 43)). No (quasi-)experimental studies assessed preterm birth or COPD. In observational studies, improved cookstoves were associated with a significant reduction in COPD among women: two studies, 9757 participants; RR=0.74 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.90). Reductions in cough (four studies, 1779 participants; RR=0.72 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.87)), phlegm (four studies, 1779 participants; RR=0.65 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.80)), wheezing/breathing difficulty (four studies; 1779 participants; RR=0.41 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.59)) and conjunctivitis (three studies, 892 participants; RR=0.58 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.78)) were observed among women., Conclusion: Improved cookstoves provide respiratory and ocular symptom reduction and may reduce COPD risk among women, but had no demonstrable child health impact., Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42016033075., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Biomass fuel is used as a primary cooking source by more than half of the world's population, contributing to a high burden of disease. Although cleaner fuels are available, some households continue using solid fuels because of financial constraints and absence of infrastructure, especially in non-notified slums. The present study documents a randomised controlled study investigating the efficacy of improved cookstove on the personal exposure to air pollution and the respiratory health of women and children in an Indian slum. The improved cookstove was based on co-creation of a low-smoke chulha with local communities in order to support adaption and sustained uptake., Methods: The study will be conducted in a non-notified slum called Ashrayanagar in Bangalore, India. The study design will be a 1:1 randomised controlled intervention trial, including 250 households. The intervention group will receive an improved cookstove (low-smoke chulha) and the control group will continue using either the traditional cookstove (chulha) or a combination of the traditional stove and the kerosene/diesel stove. Follow-up time is 1 year. Outcomes include change in lung function (FEV 1/ FVC), incidence of pneumonia, change in personal PM 2.5 and CO exposure, incidence of respiratory symptoms (cough, phlegm, wheeze and shortness of breath), prevalence of other related symptoms (headache and burning eyes), change in behaviour and adoption of the stove. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Indian Institute of Public Health Hyderabad- Bengaluru Campus., Discussion: The findings from this study aim to provide insight into the effects of improved cookstoves in urban slums. Results can give evidence for the decrease of indoor air pollution and the improvement of respiratory health for children and women., Trial Registration: The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov on 21 June 2016 with the identifier NCT02821650 ; A Study to Test the Impact of an Improved Chulha on the Respiratory Health of Women and Children in Indian Slums.