Rapid Review on the Concept of Positive Health and Its Implementation in Practice.

Positive health (PH) has been described as a promising transformative innovation to address the challenges of promoting well-being and reducing the burden of disease. For this study, we conducted a scientific literature review of the current state of knowledge about PH as introduced by Huber and colleagues, following the Cochrane Rapid Review recommendations. Three databases were searched (PubMed, Google Scholar, and CINAHL). Data were extracted and synthesised using a narrative approach. A total of 55 articles were included. The initial evaluation revealed promising results at both the individual and collective levels. However, several articles gave reason for further refinement of the conceptualisation of PH and of ways to measure the effects of PH interventions in greater detail. Professionals also expressed a desire for a more informed application and elaboration of the PH method, in various settings and populations, to increase its effectiveness in practice. The results from the rapid review highlight the transformative potential of PH in shifting from a disease-oriented to a health-oriented paradigm of healthcare. This underlines the need for continued research regarding further development of the concept and its practical method, along with the necessity for methodological innovation.

Patient Care Teams in treatment of diabetes and chronic heart failure in primary care: an observational networks study.

BACKGROUND: Patient care teams have an important role in providing medical care to patients with chronic disease, but insight into how to improve their performance is limited. Two potentially relevant determinants are the presence of a central care provider with a coordinating role and an active role of the patient in the network of care providers. In this study, we aimed to develop and test measures of these factors related to the network of care providers of an individual patient. METHODS: We performed an observational study in patients with type 2 diabetes or chronic heart failure, who were recruited from three primary care practices in The Netherlands. The study focused on medical treatment, advice on physical activity, and disease monitoring. We used patient questionnaires and chart review to measure connections between the patient and care providers, and a written survey among care providers to measure their connections. Data on clinical performance were extracted from the medical records. We used network analysis to compute degree centrality coefficients for the patient and to identify the most central health professional in each network. A range of other network characteristics were computed including network centralization, density, size, diversity of disciplines, and overlap among activity-specific networks. Differences across the two chronic conditions and associations with disease monitoring were explored. RESULTS: Approximately 50% of the invited patients participated. Participation rates of health professionals were close to 100%. We identified 63 networks of 25 patients: 22 for medical treatment, 16 for physical exercise advice, and 25 for disease monitoring. General practitioners (GPs) were the most central care providers for the three clinical activities in both chronic conditions. The GP's degree centrality coefficient varied substantially, and higher scores seemed to be associated with receiving more comprehensive disease monitoring. The degree centrality coefficient of patients also varied substantially but did not seem to be associated with disease monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Our method can be used to measure connections between care providers of an individual patient, and to examine the association between specific network parameters and healthcare received. Further research is needed to refine the measurement method and to test the association of specific network parameters with quality and outcomes of healthcare.

The Patients Assessment Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire in The Netherlands: a validation study in rural general practice.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with chronic illness receive health care in primary care settings, so a challenge is to provide well-structured chronic care in these settings. Our aim was to develop and test a Dutch version of the PACIC questionnaire, a measure for patient reported structured chronic care. METHODS: Observational study in 165 patients with diabetes or COPD from four general practices (72% response rate). Patients completed a written questionnaire, which included instruments for assessing chronic illness care (PACIC), evaluations of general practice (Europep), enablement (PEI), and individual characteristics. RESULTS: The patients had a mean age of 68.0 years and 47% comprised of women. Twenty-two to 35% of responding patients did not provide answers to specific items in the PACIC. In 11 items the lowest answering category was used by 30% or more of the responders and in 6 items the highest answering category was used by this number of responders. Principal factor analysis identified the previously defined five domains reasonably well. Cronbach's alpha per domain varied from 0.71 to 0.83, and the intraclass coefficient from 0.66 to 0.91. Diabetes patients reported higher presence of structured chronic care for 14 out of the 20 PACIC items. The effect of patient evaluations of general practice on the PACIC score was positive (b = 0.72, p < 0.004), but the effect of patient enablement on the PACIC score was negative (b = -1.13, p < 0.000). CONCLUSION: A translated and validated Dutch version of the PACIC questionnaire is now available. Further research on its validity is recommended.

Patient characteristics as predictors of primary health care preferences: a systematic literature analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify associations between various cultural and demographic factors and patients' primary health care preferences. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were performed in MEDLINE (1966-December 2000), PsycINFO (1977-May 2001) and Sociological Abstracts (1963-December 2000). Identified papers were checked for more papers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies with a focus on primary health care or health care in general, asking patients about preferences with regard to health care, reporting quantitative results and examining the relations between specific patient characteristics and patient preferences. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted from studies using a scoring form to register what methods were used, which patient characteristics were analysed and which patient characteristics significantly influenced patients' preferences with regard to different aspects of health care (P < 0.05). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 145 studies were included with 2276 comparisons between subgroups of patients. Of all the comparisons, 607 (27%) showed a significant association between patient characteristics and preferences with regard to primary health care. Age and economic status significantly related to patient preferences in 38 and 33% of the comparisons, respectively. Education, health status, family situation, sex, and utilization of health care related significantly to patient preferences in less than 25% of the comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: This review of the literature showed patient characteristics to be an important determinant of preferences regarding many aspects of primary health care defined as general practice care or health care, in general. All of the patient characteristics examined here showed at least some significant associations with preferences for primary health care.