Search

Predicting the short- and long-term outcomes of extremely preterm infants remains a challenge. Multivariable prognostic models might be valuable tools for clinicians, parents, and policymakers for providing accurate outcome estimates. In this perspective, we discuss the opportunities and challenges of using prognostic models in extremely preterm infants at population and individual levels. At a population level, these models could support the development of guidelines for decisions about treatment limits and may support policy processes such as benchmarking and resource allocation. At an individual level, these models may enhance prenatal counselling conversations by considering multiple variables and improving transparency about expected outcomes. Furthermore, they may improve consistency in projections shared with parents. For the development of prognostic models, we discuss important considerations such as predictor and outcome measure selection, clinical impact assessment, and generalizability. Lastly, future recommendations for developing and using prognostic models are suggested. Importantly, the purpose of a prognostic model should be clearly defined, and integrating these models into prenatal counselling requires thoughtful consideration.

Abstract Background Dutch standard diabetes care is generally protocol-driven. However, considering that general practices wish to tailor diabetes care to individual patients and encourage self-management, particularly in light of current COVID-19 related constraints, protocols and other barriers may hinder implementation. The impact of dispensing with protocol and implementation of self-management interventions on patient monitoring and experiences are not known. This study aims to evaluate tailoring of care by understanding experiences of well-organised practices 1) when dispensing with protocol; 2) determining the key conditions for successful implementation of self-management interventions; and furthermore exploring patients’ experiences regarding dispensing with protocol and self-management interventions. Methods in this mixed-methods prospective study, practices (n = 49) were invited to participate if they met protocol-related quality targets, and their adult patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes were invited if they had received protocol-based diabetes care for a minimum of 1 year. For practices, study participation consisted of the opportunity to deliver protocol-free diabetes care, with selection and implementation of self-management interventions. For patients, study participation provided exposure to protocol-free diabetes care and self-management interventions. Qualitative outcomes (practices: 5 focus groups, 2 individual interviews) included experiences of dispensing with protocol and the implementation process of self-management interventions, operationalised as implementation fidelity. Quantitative outcomes (patients: routine registry data, surveys) consisted of diabetes monitoring completeness, satisfaction, wellbeing and health status at baseline and follow-up (24 months). Results Qualitative: In participating practices (n = 4), dispensing with protocol encouraged reflection on tailored care and selection of various self-management interventions A focus on patient preferences, team collaboration and intervention feasibility was associated with high implementation fidelity Quantitative: In patients (n = 126), likelihood of complete monitoring decreased significantly after two years (OR 0.2 (95% CI 0.1–0.5), p