eHealth Apps Replacing or Complementing Health Care Contacts: Scoping Review on Adverse Effects.

BACKGROUND: The use of eHealth has increased tremendously in recent years. eHealth is generally considered to have a positive effect on health care quality and to be a promising alternative to face-to-face health care contacts. Surprisingly little is known about possible adverse effects of eHealth apps. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a scoping review on empirical research into adverse effects of eHealth apps that aim to deliver health care at a distance. We investigated whether adverse effects were reported and the nature and quality of research into these possible adverse effects. METHODS: For this scoping review, we followed the five steps of Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology. We searched specifically for studies into eHealth apps that replaced or complemented the face-to-face contact between a health professional and a patient in the context of treatment, health monitoring, or supporting self-management. Studies were included when eHealth and adverse effects were mentioned in the title or abstract and when empirical data on adverse effects were provided. All health conditions, with the exception of mental health conditions, all ages, and all sample sizes were included. We examined the literature published between December 2012 and August 2017 in the following databases: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists. RESULTS: Our search identified 79 papers that were potentially relevant; 11 studies met our inclusion criteria after screening. These studies differed in many ways and the majority were characterized by small research populations and low study quality. Adverse effects are rarely subject to systematic scientific research. So far, information on real adverse effects is mainly limited to incidental reporting or as a bycatch from qualitative pilot studies. Despite the shortage of solid research, we found some indications of possible negative impact on patient-centeredness and efficiency, such as less transparency in the relationship between health professionals and patients and time-consuming work routines. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high-quality empirical research on adverse effects of eHealth apps that replace or complement face-to-face care. While the development of eHealth apps is ongoing, the knowledge with regard to possible adverse effects is limited. The available research often focuses on efficacy, added value, implementation issues, use, and satisfaction, whereas adverse effects are underexplored. A better understanding of possible adverse effects could be a starting point in improving the positive impact of eHealth-based health care delivery.

Primary mental healthcare for adults with mild intellectual disabilities: Patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: People with mild intellectual disabilities (MID) experience more mental health (MH) problems than the general population but often do not receive appropriate primary MH care. Primary MH care is essential in integrative MH care and, therefore, demands high quality. To improve primary MH care for this patient group, account must be taken of the experiences of people with MID. So far, their perspectives have been largely absent from primary MH care research. OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' experiences, needs, and suggestions for improvement regarding primary MH care for people with MID. METHODS: Qualitative study among adults with MID who visited their GP with MH problems in the previous 12 months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using a guide based on Person-Centred Primary Care Measures. Transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The 11 interviews that we conducted revealed four themes. The first theme, cumulative vulnerability, describes the vulnerability - instigated by the MID and reinforced by MH problems - experienced on a GP visit. The other themes (needs regarding the GP, needs regarding the network, self-determination) arise from this vulnerability. CONCLUSION: People with both MID and MH problems are extra vulnerable in primary care but desire self-determination regarding their MH care trajectory. This requires investment in a good GP-patient relationship and the organisation of additional support to meet these patients' needs, for which collaborative care with the patient, the patient's network, and other (care) professionals is of utmost importance.

People with mild intellectual disabilities (MID) feel more vulnerable visiting their GP with mental health (MH) problems than with somatic problemsPatients with MH problems report additional needs and expectations regarding their care and support networkGPs face challenges in coordinating care for patients with both MID and MH problems.

WITHDRAWN: Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain is a costly illness for which spinal manipulative therapy is commonly recommended. Previous systematic reviews and practice guidelines have reached discordant results on the effectiveness of this therapy for low-back pain. OBJECTIVES: To resolve the discrepancies related to the use of spinal manipulative therapy and to update previous estimates of effectiveness, by comparing spinal manipulative therapy with other therapies and then incorporating data from recent high-quality randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) into the analysis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were electronically searched from their respective beginning to January 2000, using the Back Group search strategy; references from previous systematic reviews were also screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated spinal manipulative therapy for patients with low-back pain, with at least one day of follow-up, and at least one clinically-relevant outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors, who served as the authors for all stages of the meta-analysis, independently extracted data from unmasked articles. Comparison treatments were classified into the following seven categories: sham, conventional general practitioner care, analgesics, physical therapy, exercises, back school, or a collection of therapies judged to be ineffective or even harmful (traction, corset, bed rest, home care, topical gel, no treatment, diathermy, and minimal massage). MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine RCTs were identified. Meta-regression models were developed for acute or chronic pain and short-term and long-term pain and function. For patients with acute low-back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was superior only to sham therapy (10-mm difference [95% CI, 2 to 17 mm] on a 100-mm visual analogue scale) or therapies judged to be ineffective or even harmful. Spinal manipulative therapy had no statistically or clinically significant advantage over general practitioner care, analgesics, physical therapy, exercises, or back school. Results for patients with chronic low-back pain were similar. Radiation of pain, study quality, profession of manipulator, and use of manipulation alone or in combination with other therapies did not affect these results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that spinal manipulative therapy is superior to other standard treatments for patients with acute or chronic low-back pain.

Adults with intellectual disabilities and mental health disorders in primary care: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: GPs are increasingly confronted with patients with both intellectual disabilities (ID) and mental health disorders (MHD). Currently, the care provided to these patients is found to be insufficient, putting them at risk of developing more severe MHD. Improving the quality of GP care will improve the whole of mental health care for this patient group. Therefore, an overview of the content and quality of care provided to them by the GP may be helpful. AIM: To provide an up-to-date literature overview of the care provided by GPs to patients with ID and MHD, identify knowledge gaps, and inform research, practice, and policy about opportunities to improve care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Scoping review. METHOD: PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and grey literature were searched for publications concerning primary care and patients with ID and MHD. Selected publications were analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: One hundred publications met the inclusion criteria. Five overarching themes were identified: GP roles, knowledge and experience, caregiver roles, collaboration, and a standardised approach. The results show GPs' vital, diverse, and demanding roles in caring for patients with both ID and MHD. GPs experience problems in fulfilling their roles, and gaps are identified regarding effective GP training programmes, applicable guidelines and tools, optimal collaborative mental health care, and corresponding payment models. CONCLUSION: The improvement required in the current quality of GP care to patients with ID and MHD can be achieved by bridging the identified gaps and initiating close collaborations between care professionals, policymakers, and organisational managers.

Surgery for lateral elbow pain.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is sometimes recommended for persistent lateral elbow pain where other less invasive interventions have failed. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and safety of surgery for lateral elbow pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science unrestricted by date or language (to 15 December 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials assessing a surgical intervention compared with no treatment or another intervention including an alternate surgical intervention, in adults with lateral elbow pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials involving 191 participants with persistent symptoms of at least five months duration and failed conservative treatment. Three trials compared two different surgical procedures and two trials compared surgery to a non-surgical treatment. All trials were highly susceptible to bias. Meta-analysis was precluded due to differing comparator groups and outcome measures. One trial (24 participants) reported no difference between open extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) surgery and radiofrequency microtenotomy, although reanalysis found that pain was significantly lower in the latter group at three weeks (MD -2.80 points on 10 point scale, 95% CI -5.07 to -0.53). One trial (26 participants) reported no difference between open ECRB surgery and decompression of the posterior interosseous nerve in terms of the number of participants with improvement in pain pain on activity, or tenderness on palpation after an average of 31 months following surgery. One trial (45 participants) found that compared with open release of the ERCB muscle, percutaneous release resulted in slightly better function. One trial (40 participants) found comparable results between open surgical release of the ECRB and botulinum toxin injection at two years, although we could not extract any data for this review. One trial (56 participants) found that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) improved pain at night compared with percutaneous tenotomy at 12 months (MD 5 points on 100 point VAS, 95% CI 1.12 to 8.88), but there were no differences in pain at rest or pain on applying pressure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to a small number of studies, large heterogeneity in interventions across trials, small sample sizes and poor reporting of outcomes, there was insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of surgery for lateral elbow pain. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials and development of standard outcome measures are needed.

Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SMT for chronic low-back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: An updated search was conducted by an experienced librarian to June 2009 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature.   SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. No restrictions were placed on the setting or type of pain; studies which exclusively examined sciatica were excluded. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Sensitivity analyses and investigation of heterogeneity were performed, where possible, for the meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), nine of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. In general, there is high quality evidence that SMT has a small, statistically significant but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (MD: -4.16, 95% CI -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.07) compared to other interventions. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. There is varying quality of evidence (ranging from low to high) that SMT has a statistically significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is very low quality evidence that SMT is not statistically significantly more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect in relation to inert interventions and sham SMT, and data related to recovery.

Patient education for preventing diabetic foot ulceration.

BACKGROUND: Ulceration of the feet, which can result in loss of limbs and even death, is one of the major health problems for people with diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient education on the prevention of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes mellitus. SEARCH STRATEGY: Eligible studies were identified by searching the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (22 December 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2009 Issue 4 ), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to November Week 3 2009), Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (Searched 22/12/09), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2009 Week 51) and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to December 22 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated educational programmes for preventing foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus. There was no restriction on language of the publications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. Primary end-points were foot ulceration or ulcer recurrence and amputation. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven RCTs were included. Three studies described the effect of foot care education as part of general diabetes education compared with usual care. Two studies examined the effect of foot care education tailored to educational needs compared with no intervention. Finally, six studies described the effect of intensive compared with brief educational interventions. Pooling of outcome data was precluded by marked, mainly clinical, heterogeneity. Four RCTs assessed the effect of patient education on primary end-points: foot ulceration and amputations. One of these studies reported a statistically significant benefit of one hour group education after one year of follow-up in people with diabetes who were at high risk for foot ulceration; RR amputation 0.33 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.76); RR ulceration 0.31 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.66), however this study was at high risk of bias and may have overestimated the effect due to a unit of analysis error. One similar, but methodologically superior study did not confirm this finding; RR amputation 0.98 (95% CI 0.41 to 2.34); RR ulceration 1.00 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.44). The other two studies did not detect any effect of education on ulcer incidence or amputation but were underpowered. Patients' foot care knowledge was improved in the short term in five of eight RCTs in which this outcome was assessed, as was patients' self reported self care behaviour in the short term in seven of nine RCTs. The effects on callus, nail problems and fungal infections were described in five of the included studies, of which only two reported temporary improvements after an educational intervention.Only one of the included RCTs was considered to be at low risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the RCTs included in this review are at high or unclear risk of bias. In some trials, foot care knowledge and self reported patient behaviour seem to be positively influenced by education in the short term. This, however, must be viewed with caution. The ultimate goal of educational interventions is preventing foot ulceration and amputation but only four RCTs reported these outcomes and only two reported sufficient data to examine this. Based on these two studies, we conclude that there is insufficient robust evidence that limited patient education alone is effective in achieving clinically relevant reductions in ulcer and amputation incidence.Future research should focus on evaluating the effect of more comprehensive and/or intensive prevention strategies which may also include patient education (complex interventions).

Behavioural treatment for chronic low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural treatment is commonly used in the management of chronic low-back pain (CLBP) to reduce disability through modification of maladaptive pain behaviours and cognitive processes. Three behavioural approaches are generally distinguished: operant, cognitive, and respondent; but are often combined as a treatment package. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of behavioural therapy for CLBP and the most effective behavioural approach. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched up to February 2009. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials on behavioural treatments for non-specific CLBP were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 randomised trials (3438 participants) in this review, up 11 from the previous version. Fourteen trials (47%) had low risk of bias. For most comparisons, there was only low or very low quality evidence to support the results. There was moderate quality evidence that:i) operant therapy was more effective than waiting list (SMD -0.43; 95%CI -0.75 to -0.11) for short-term pain relief;ii) little or no difference exists between operant, cognitive, or combined behavioural therapy for short- to intermediate-term pain relief;iii) behavioural treatment was more effective than usual care for short-term pain relief (MD -5.18; 95%CI -9.79 to -0.57), but there were no differences in the intermediate- to long-term, or on functional status;iv) there was little or no difference between behavioural treatment and group exercise for pain relief or depressive symptoms over the intermediate- to long-term;v) adding behavioural therapy to inpatient rehabilitation was no more effective than inpatient rehabilitation alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For patients with CLBP, there is moderate quality evidence that in the short-term, operant therapy is more effective than waiting list and behavioural therapy is more effective than usual care for pain relief, but no specific type of behavioural therapy is more effective than another. In the intermediate- to long-term, there is little or no difference between behavioural therapy and group exercises for pain or depressive symptoms. Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect and may change the estimates.

Medically unexplained symptoms: time to and triggers for diagnosis in primary care consultations.

BACKGROUND: It is currently not known when in the consultation GPs label symptoms as medically unexplained and what triggers this. AIM: To establish the moment in primary care consultations when a GP labels symptoms as medically unexplained and to explore what triggers them to do so. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a qualitative study. Data were collected in the Netherlands in 2015. METHOD: GPs' consultations were video-recorded. GPs stated whether the consultation was about medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). The GP was asked to reflect on the video-recorded consultation and to indicate the moment when they labelled symptoms as MUS. Qualitative interviewing and analysis were performed to explore the triggers GPs perceived that caused them to label the symptoms as MUS. RESULTS: A total of 43 of the 393 video-recorded consultations (11%) were labelled as MUS. The mean time until GPs labelled symptoms as medically unexplained was about 4 minutes for newly presented symptoms and 2 minutes for symptoms for which the patients had already visited the GP before. GPs were triggered to label symptoms as MUS in the consultation by: the way patients presented their symptoms; the symptoms not fitting into a specific pattern; patients attributing the symptoms to a psychosocial context; and a discrepancy between symptom presentation and objective findings. CONCLUSION: Most GPs labelled the presented symptoms as medically unexplained soon after the start of the consultation. GPs are triggered to label symptoms as medically unexplained by patients' symptom presentation, symptom patterns, and symptom attribution. This suggests that non-analytical reasoning was a central component in their thought process.

Use and Effects of Patient Access to Medical Records in General Practice Through a Personal Health Record in the Netherlands: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: In the Dutch health care system, general practitioners hold a central position. They store information from all health care providers who are involved with their patients in their electronic health records. Web-based access to the summary record in general practice through a personal health record (PHR) may increase patients' insight into their medical conditions and help them to be involved in their care. OBJECTIVE: We describe the protocol that we will use to investigate the utilization of patients' digital access to the summary of their medical records in general practice through a PHR and its effects on the involvement of patients in their care. METHODS: We will conduct a multilevel mixed-methods study in which the PHR and Web-based access to the summary record will be offered for 6 months to a random sample of 500 polypharmacy patients, 500 parents of children aged <4 years, and 500 adults who do not belong to the former two groups. At the patient level, a controlled before-after study will be conducted using surveys, and concurrently, qualitative data will be collected from focus group discussions, think-aloud observations, and semistructured interviews. At the general practice staff (GP staff) level, focus group discussions will be conducted at baseline and Q-methodology inquiries at the end of the study period. The primary outcomes at the patient level are barriers and facilitators for using the PHR and summary records and changes in taking an active role in decision making and care management and medication adherence. Outcomes at the GP staff level are attitudes before and opinions after the implementation of the intervention. Patient characteristics and changes in outcomes related to patient involvement during the study period will be compared between the users and nonusers of the intervention using chi-square tests and t tests. A thematic content analysis of the qualitative data will be performed, and the results will be used to interpret quantitative findings. RESULTS: Enrollment was completed in May 2017 and the possibility to view GP records through the PHR was implemented in December 2017. Data analysis is currently underway and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in autumn 2019. CONCLUSIONS: We expect that the findings of this study will be useful to health care providers and health care organizations that consider introducing the use of PHR and Web-based access to records and to those who have recently started using these. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry NTR6395; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=6395 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/71nc8jzwM). REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/10193.

Validation of ACCESS: an automated tool to support self-management of COPD exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: To support patients with COPD in their self-management of symptom worsening, we developed Adaptive Computerized COPD Exacerbation Self-management Support (ACCESS), an innovative software application that provides automated treatment advice without the interference of a health care professional. Exacerbation detection is based on 12 symptom-related yes-or-no questions and the measurement of peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and body temperature. Automated treatment advice is based on a decision model built by clinical expert panel opinion and Bayesian network modeling. The current paper describes the validity of ACCESS. METHODS: We performed secondary analyses on data from a 3-month prospective observational study in which patients with COPD registered respiratory symptoms daily on diary cards and measured SpO2, FEV1, and body temperature. We examined the validity of the most important treatment advice of ACCESS, ie, to contact the health care professional, against symptom- and event-based exacerbations. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients completed 2,928 diary cards. One or more of the different pieces of ACCESS advice were provided in 71.7% of all cases. We identified 115 symptom-based exacerbations. Cross-tabulation showed a sensitivity of 97.4% (95% CI 92.0-99.3), specificity of 65.6% (95% CI 63.5-67.6), and positive and negative predictive value of 13.4% (95% CI 11.2-15.9) and 99.8% (95% CI 99.3-99.9), respectively, for ACCESS' advice to contact a health care professional in case of an exacerbation. CONCLUSION: In many cases (71.7%), ACCESS gave at least one self-management advice to lower symptom burden, showing that ACCES provides self-management support for both day-to-day symptom variations and exacerbations. High sensitivity shows that if there is an exacerbation, ACCESS will advise patients to contact a health care professional. The high negative predictive value leads us to conclude that when ACCES does not provide the advice to contact a health care professional, the risk of an exacerbation is very low. Thus, ACCESS can safely be used in patients with COPD to support self-management in case of an exacerbation.

Improving GP communication in consultations on medically unexplained symptoms: a qualitative interview study with patients in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Many GPs find the care of patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) challenging. Patients themselves are often not satisfied with the care they receive. AIM: To explore the problems patients with MUS experience in communication during consultations, with the aim of improving such consultations DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews. METHOD: GP consultations were videorecorded and the GPs were asked immediately afterwards whether MUS were presented. Patients in these MUS consultations were asked to reflect on the consultation in a semi-structured interview while watching a recording of their own consultation. RESULTS: Of the 393 videorecorded consultations, 43 contained MUS. Patients who did identified six categories of problems. First, they reported a mismatch between the GP's and their own agenda. Second, patients indicated that the GP evoked an uncomfortable feeling in them during the consultation. Third, they found that GPs did not provide a specific management plan for their symptoms. Fourth, patients indicated that the GP was not well prepared for the consultation. Fifth, they perceived prejudices in the GP during the consultation. Finally, one patient found that the GP did not acknowledge a limited understanding of the origin of the symptoms. CONCLUSION: According to patients, GPs can improve their consultations on MUS by making genuine contact with their patients, by paying more attention to the patient's agenda, and by avoiding evoking uncomfortable feelings and displaying prejudices. They should prepare their consultations and focus on the issues that matter to patients, for example, symptom management. GPs should be honest to patients when they do not understand the origin of symptoms.

GPs' opinions of health assessment instruments for people with intellectual disabilities: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: GPs provide health care to people with intellectual disabilities (ID). People with ID find it difficult to express themselves concerning health-related matters. Applying health assessments is an effective method to reveal health needs, and can play a role in prevention and health promotion. AIM: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore GPs' considerations about applying a health assessment for people with ID. DESIGN AND SETTING: This focus group study was conducted among a selection of Dutch GPs. METHOD: An interview guide was developed. All discussions were audiorecorded and transcribed. Analysis was performed using the framework analysis approach. Two researchers independently applied open coding and identified a thematic framework. This framework and the summaries of views per theme were discussed in the research team. RESULTS: After four focus groups, with 23 GPs, saturation was reached. Three main themes evolved: health assessments in relation to GPs' responsibility; the usefulness and necessity of health assessments; and barriers to using health assessments on people with ID. A health assessment instrument for people with ID can help GPs to focus on certain issues that are not so common in the general population. GPs are motivated to use such a tool if it is scientifically tested, and results in significant health gains. However, GPs identify barriers at the level of GP, patient, and organisation. CONCLUSION: Most GPs in the focus groups consider providing medical care to people with ID their responsibility and indicate that a health assessment instrument could be a valuable tool. In order to deliver good care, they need education and support. Many barriers need to be overcome before a health assessment instrument can be implemented.

Change in calculated cardiovascular risk due to guideline revision: A cross-sectional study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines and accompanying risk charts concerning cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) are regularly revised worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether revision of the Dutch CVRM guideline has led to the reclassification of patients and, accordingly, to changes in drug recommendations. METHODS: All medical records (year 2011) of patients aged 40-65 years with no history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) but using antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering drugs, were selected from the Registration Network of General Practices associated with Leiden University Medical Center. Multiple imputation techniques for missing determinants were used. The individual cardiovascular risk was calculated and the resulting drug recommendation was assessed according to both the 2006 and 2012 versions of the guideline. RESULTS: In total, 2075 patients were selected, of whom 1248 fulfilled the guideline criteria (systolic blood pressure 115-180 mmHg and total cholesterol/high-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol ratio 3.5-8). According to the 2012 guideline, 58.2% of the patients had low risk and 249 patients (20.0%) shifted to a different risk category. For 150 of these patients (12.0%), this category shift implied a shift in drug recommendation. The probability of shifting in drug recommendation increased with increasing age, cholesterol level, and blood pressure, and by being male. CONCLUSION: Guideline revision may have important implications: based on identical values for risk factors, according to the latest revision of the Dutch CVRM guideline 20% of patients shifted in risk category and 12% of the patients shifted in drug recommendation.

Chronic kidney disease in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 or hypertension in general practice.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care patients with diabetes or hypertension is unknown. AIM: To assess the prevalence and severity of CKD in patients with diabetes and hypertension; and identify whether age, sex, diabetes, and hypertension are associated with CKD. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Two Dutch primary health care centres (15 954 enlisted patients). METHOD: Patients, aged ≥ 25 years, with known diabetes type 2 (n = 471) or hypertension (n = 960), were selected on 1 October 2006. Initial screening uptake rates were assessed from the electronic patient records, and patients were invited when blood or urine measurements were missing. The presence of albuminuria was determined, glomerular filtration rate estimated, and clinical characteristics extracted. RESULTS: Initial screening uptake rates were 93% and 69% for diabetes and hypertension, respectively, and increased to 97% (n = 455) and 87% (n = 836) after active invitation. The prevalence of CKD was 28% in diabetes and 21% in hypertension only. The presence of diabetes was independently associated with albuminuria (odds ratio [OR] 4.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.67 to 6.71), but not with decreased estimated GFR (eGFR) (OR 0.75; 95% CI = 0.54 to 1.04). Age showed the strongest association with decreased eGFR (OR 2.73; 95% CI = 2.02 to 3.70). CONCLUSION: In primary care, more than one-quarter of patients with diabetes and about one-fifth of patients with hypertension have CKD. The high prevalence justifies longitudinal follow-up in order to evaluate whether intensified cardiovascular risk management is beneficial in this primary care population.