What matters in development and sustainment of community dementia friendly initiatives and why? A realist multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Dementia friendly communities (DFCs) are seen as key to participation of people with dementia and carers. Dementia-friendly initiatives (DFI) are important building blocks for the growth of DFCs. Therefore, it is essential to understand how DFIs are developed and sustained to secure the growth of DFCs. This study identifies contextual factors and mechanisms that influence the development and sustainment of Dutch DFIs. It also explains how these contextual factors and mechanisms are interrelated and the outcomes to which they lead. METHODS: Mixed methods, namely interviews, observations, documentation and focus groups, were used for this realist multiple case study. Participants were professionals (n = 46), volunteers (n = 20), people with dementia (n = 1) and carers (n = 2) who were involved in development and sustainment of DFIs in four Dutch DFCs. RESULTS: This study revealed three middle-range program theories as final outcomes: development of a support base, collaboration, and participation in DFIs by people with dementia and carers. These theories address institutional, organisational, interpersonal and individual levels in the community that are essential in development and sustainment of DFIs. CONCLUSIONS: The development and sustainment of DFIs requires the development of a support base, collaboration, and participation in DFIs by people with dementia and their carers.

How do community based dementia friendly initiatives work for people with dementia and their caregivers, and why? A rapid realist review.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and explain the outcomes of community dementia friendly initiatives (DFIs) for people with dementia and their caregivers to inform the development and tailoring of DFIs. METHODS: Literature searches on DFIs were performed through two systematic online database searches of PubMed, Embase, ASSIA, CINAHL and Google scholar. Papers were only included if they evaluated outcomes using empirical data from people with dementia or caregivers. Data collection and analysis were guided by the categorization in the DEM-FACT taxonomy and RAMESES guidelines for realist reviews. RESULTS: Of 7154 records identified, 22 papers were included with qualitative, mixed method and quantitative study designs. The synthesis led to a description of programme theories addressing caring, stimulating and activating communities. Outcomes for people with dementia and caregivers included having contact with others, enjoyment and decrease of stress and, lastly, support. This synthesis also indicated how people with dementia participated in a specific role in DFIs, such as patient, team member or active citizen. CONCLUSIONS: DFIs generate different outcomes for people with dementia and caregivers, depending on the kind of initiative and the specific role for people with dementia. These findings could be a catalyst for initiation and further development of DFIs in a dementia friendly community (DFC). This draws attention to the multiple aspects of DFCs and supports reflection on their essential principles.

Factors contributing to innovation readiness in health care organizations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Increasing innovation readiness of healthcare organizations is necessary to meet upcoming challenges, including population aging, staff shortages and reduced funding. Health care organizations differ in the extent to which they are innovation ready. This review aims to clarify the concept of innovation readiness and identify which factors contribute to innovation readiness in health care organizations. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted based on the framework from Arksey and O'Malley. PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for studies that (a) aimed to contribute to scientific knowledge about innovation readiness of health care organizations, (b) were peer-reviewed, (c) reported empirical data and (d) were written in English, Dutch or German. Factors researched in the included studies were bundled into 4 overarching main factors and 10 sub-factors. RESULTS: Of the 6,208 studies identified, 44 were included. The majority (n = 36) of the studies had been conducted since 2011 and almost half of the studies (n = 19) were performed in hospitals. Of the 44 studies, 21 researched factors contributing to innovation readiness in the implementation stage of the innovation process. The authors used a variety of words and descriptions addressing innovation readiness, with hardly any theoretical frameworks for innovation readiness presented. Four main factors and 10 sub-factors contributing to the innovation readiness of health care organizations were summarized: strategic course for innovation, climate for innovation, leadership for innovation and commitment to innovation. Climate for innovation (n = 16) was studied the most and individual commitment to innovation (n = 6) was the least studied. CONCLUSION: Our study identified four main factors contributing to the innovation readiness of health care organizations. Research into innovation readiness of health care organizations is a rather new field. Future research could be directed towards defining the concept of innovation readiness and the development of a framework for innovation readiness. More understanding of the interplay of factors contributing to innovation readiness in all stages of the innovation process and in diverse health care settings can support health care managers to structurally embed innovation. This review contributes to the first stage of theory building on factors contributing to innovation readiness of health care organizations.

Development of a conversation approach for practice nurses aimed at making shared decisions on goals and action plans with primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: Primary care nurses play a crucial role in setting personal goals and action plans together with chronically ill patients. This may be a challenge for practice nurses, who are often trained to adopt protocol-based work routines. The aim of this study was to systematically develop a conversation approach, and a corresponding training course, for practice nurses aimed at making shared decisions about goals and actions with their chronically ill patients. METHODS: The 6-step iterative Intervention Mapping protocol was used as a framework. This paper describes the first four steps of the protocol. After the first step, in which literature studies as well as qualitative studies were conducted, the overall aim and objectives for the approach were formulated (step 2). In step 3, methods and strategies for the approach were chosen, which were translated into practical components in step 4. In addition, a pilot study was conducted. RESULTS: The main objectives of the approach focus on the ability of practice nurses to explore the patients' perspectives from a holistic point of view, to explicitly formulate goals and action plans, to tailor shared decision making about goals and action plans to individual patients, and to continuously reflect on work-related attitudes. The approach consists of a practical framework for shared decision making about goals and actions. The framework involves a tool for exploring patients' perspectives and a tool for identifying patient profiles, to facilitate tailoring shared decision making. A comprehensive training course for practice nurses was developed. CONCLUSION: We systematically developed a conversation approach, involving a practical framework with several tools, which aims to support practice nurses in making shared decisions about goals and actions with their patients. As practice nurses need support in their learning process to be able to share decisions with patients, we also developed a comprehensive training course for them. The approach and the training course were developed in close collaboration with important stakeholders. Some critical factors for the implementation of the approach were revealed. These factors will be addressed in the next step, a process evaluation (not part of this paper).

Interprofessional primary care team meetings: a qualitative approach comparing observations with personal opinions.

BACKGROUND: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions requiring primary care services increases. Professionals from different disciplines collaborate and coordinate care to deal with the complex health care needs. There is lack of information on current practices regarding interprofessional team (IPT) meetings. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to improve our understanding of the process of interprofessional collaboration in primary care team meetings in the Netherlands by observing the current practice and exploring personal opinions. METHODS: Qualitative study involving observations of team meetings and interviews with participants. Eight different IPT meetings (n = 8) in different primary care practices were observed by means of video recordings. Experiences were explored by conducting individual semi-structured interviews (n = 60) with participants (i.e. health care professionals from different disciplines) of the observed team meetings. The data were analysed by means of content analysis. RESULTS: Most participants expressed favourable opinions about their team meetings. However, observations showed that team meetings were more or less hectic, and lacked a clear structure and team coordinator or leader. There appears to be a discrepancy between findings from observations and interviews. From the interviews, four main themes were extracted: (1) Team structure and composition, (2) Patient-centredness, (3) Interaction and (4) Attitude and motivation. CONCLUSION: IPT meetings could benefit from improvements in structure, patient-centredness and leadership by the chairpersons. Given the discrepancy between observations and interviews, it would appear useful to improve team members' awareness of aspects that could be improved before training them in dealing with specific challenges.

What does it take to set goals for self-management in primary care? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing number of patients with a chronic illness demanding primary care services. This demands for effective self-management support, including collaborative goal setting. Despite the fact that primary care professionals seem to have difficulties implementing goal setting, little information is available about the factors influencing the complexity of this process in primary care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to contribute to an understanding of the complexity of self-management goal setting in primary care by exploring experts' and primary care professionals' experiences with self-management goal setting and viewpoints regarding influencing factors. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative research methodology was adopted. Two focus groups and three individual interviews were conducted (total participants n = 17). Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The findings were categorized into four main themes with subordinated subthemes. The themes focus around the complexity of setting non-medical goals and around professionals' skills and attitudes to negotiate and decide about goals with patients. Furthermore, patients' skills and attitudes for goal setting and the integration of goal setting in the time available were formulated as themes. CONCLUSIONS: Setting self-management goals in primary care, especially in family medicine, might require a shift from a medical perspective to a biopsychosocial perspective, with an increasing role set aside for the professional to coach the patient in expressing his self-management goals and to take responsibility for these goals.

Developing interprofessional care plans in chronic care: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The number of people suffering from one or more chronic conditions is rising, resulting in an increase in patients with complex health care demands. Interprofessional collaboration and the use of shared care plans support the management of complex health care demands of patients with chronic illnesses. This study aims to get an overview of the scientific literature on developing interprofessional shared care plans. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the scientific literature regarding the development of interprofessional shared care plans. A systematic database search resulted in 45 articles being included, 5 of which were empirical studies concentrating purely on the care plan. Findings were synthesised using directed content analysis. RESULTS: This review revealed three themes. The first theme was the format of the shared care plan, with the following elements: patient's current state; goals and concerns; actions and interventions; and evaluation. The second theme concerned the development of shared care plans, and can be categorised as interpersonal, organisational and patient-related factors. The third theme covered tools, whose main function is to support professionals in sharing patient information without personal contact. Such tools relate to documentation of and communication about patient information. CONCLUSION: Care plan development is not a free-standing concept, but should be seen as the result of an underlying process of interprofessional collaboration between team members, including the patient. To integrate the patients' perspectives into the care plans, their needs and values need careful consideration. This review indicates a need for new empirical studies examining the development and use of shared care plans and evaluating their effects.

Interprofessional collaboration regarding patients' care plans in primary care: a focus group study into influential factors.

BACKGROUND: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions demanding primary care services is increasing. To deal with the complex health care demands of these people, professionals from different disciplines collaborate. This study aims to explore influential factors regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development in primary care. METHODS: A qualitative study, including four semi-structured focus group interviews (n = 4). In total, a heterogeneous group of experts (n = 16) and health care professionals (n = 15) participated. Participants discussed viewpoints, barriers, and facilitators regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development. The data were analysed by means of inductive content analysis. RESULTS: The findings show a variety of factors influencing the interprofessional collaboration in developing a care plan. Factors can be divided into 5 key categories: (1) patient-related factors: active role, self-management, goals and wishes, membership of the team; (2) professional-related factors: individual competences, domain thinking, motivation; (3) interpersonal factors: language differences, knowing each other, trust and respect, and motivation; (4) organisational factors: structure, composition, time, shared vision, leadership and administrative support; and (5) external factors: education, culture, hierarchy, domain thinking, law and regulations, finance, technology and ICT. CONCLUSIONS: Improving interprofessional collaboration regarding care plan development calls for an integral approach including patient- and professional related factors, interpersonal, organisational, and external factors. Further, the leader of the team seems to play a key role in watching the patient perspective, organising and coordinating interprofessional collaborations, and guiding the team through developments. The results of this study can be used as input for developing tools and interventions targeted at executing and improving interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development.

Participation and social participation: are they distinct concepts?

INTRODUCTION: The concept of participation has been extensively used in health and social care literature since the World Health Organization introduced its description in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in 2001. More recently, the concept of social participation is frequently used in research articles and policy reports. However, in the ICF, no specific definition exists for social participation, and an explanation of differences between the concepts is not available. AIM: The central question in this discussion article is whether participation, as defined by the ICF, and social participation are distinct concepts. This article illustrates the concepts of participation and social participation, presents a critical discussion of their definitions, followed by implications for rehabilitation and possible future directions. DISCUSSION: A clear definition for participation or social participation does not yet exist. Definitions for social participation differ from each other and are not sufficiently distinct from the ICF definition of participation. Although the ICF is regarded an important conceptual framework, it is criticised for not being comprehensive. The relevance of societal involvement of clients is evident for rehabilitation, but the current ICF definition of participation does not sufficiently capture societal involvement. CONCLUSION: Changing the ICF's definition of participation towards social roles would overcome a number of its shortcomings. Societal involvement would then be understood in the light of social roles. Consequently, there would be no need to make a distinction between social participation and participation.

'Practice what you preach'. Perspectives on the involvement of people with dementia and carers in community-based dementia friendly initiatives, a qualitative study.

Introduction: People with dementia and their carers experience social stigma and often refrain from social participation. Significant improvement might be achieved by creating Dementia Friendly communities (DFCs) for which dementia friendly initiatives (DFIs) are needed. DFIs are developed by a variation of stakeholders. However, people with dementia and their carers are often unrepresented herein. This study aims to get insight into the perspectives of stakeholders (e.g., health- and social care professionals, volunteers, people with dementia and their carers) about the involvement of people with dementia and their carers during the development and sustainment of DFIs. Methods: Descriptive qualitative study, using a co-research design with a carer as co-researcher. Nineteen semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, including people with dementia and their carers, were performed. Inductive content analysis took place using Atlas Ti. Results: Four themes were found: 1) the involvement of people with dementia and their carers is important for both people with dementia and their carers and other stakeholders; 2) personal character traits, life histories, and associated emotions evoke the need for involvement; 3) involvement requires an open, responsive stance and building relationships; and 4) the estimation of one's own and others' capacities influences perspectives on involvement. As such, practice what you preach means actively adopting an open, responsive approach and acknowledging the unique abilities and backgrounds of people with dementia and their carers. It emphasizes the importance of actually living by the values you advocate for. Conclusion: Central to perspectives on involving people with dementia and their carers is the emphasis on working relationally, differing from service-led and pre-structured patient and public involvement (PPI). Working relationally calls for organizational shifts aligned with a rights-based perspective to avoid tokenism, and promotion of user-led organizations with genuine partnerships. Creative methods, problem-solving, and communication skills are essential for the development and sustainment of inclusive, supportive, person-centered DFIs. Future studies should explore the long-term impact of the involvement and working relationally on the well-being of people with dementia and their carers.

Does a falling level of activity predict disability development in community-dwelling elderly people?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the predictive value of self-reported decline in weight, exhaustion, walking difficulty, grip strength and physical activity on development of disabilities in community-dwelling elderly people. DESIGN: A one-year follow-up study. SETTING: Participants were recruited via four Dutch general practitioners. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling elderly people aged 70 years or older. METHODS: A total of 687 participants received a questionnaire at baseline regarding weight loss, exhaustion, walking difficulty, grip strength, physical activity and disability. The same questionnaire was sent to them after one year follow-up. Disability was operationalized in two ways: as increased dependence and as increased difficulty in daily activities. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine whether self-reported decline in five physical indicators at baseline predicted development of dependence or increased difficulty in daily activities after one year. The analyses were controlled for age, gender and baseline disability. RESULTS: Four hundred and one participants with a mean age of 76.9 years (SD 5.2) were included in the analyses. Eighty-four of them reported increased dependence (21%) and 76 reported increased difficulty (19%) in daily activities at one-year follow-up. All physical indicators, except weight loss, were significant univariate predictors of disability. Multivariate analyses revealed that self-reported decrease in physical activity (e.g. walking, cycling, gardening) was a significant predictor of development of dependence (odds ratio (OR) = 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02-3.51) and development of difficulty (OR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.05-3.71) in daily activities. CONCLUSION: Community-dwelling elderly people who report decreased physical activity have a higher risk to develop disability at one-year follow-up.

Process Evaluation of the Optimized Provision of AT for Impaired Upper Extremity Function Within the OMARM Study.

A quality standard for the ICF-oriented provision of arm supports and robotic arms was designed. To facilitate this new working method, tools were developed in co-creation with all stakeholders. Professionals received training and were asked to apply the new working method among their clients who participated in the intervention group of the OMARM project. To find out whether the provision had changed following the introduction of the quality standard, and to gain insight into the usage of tools and the perceived added value, a process evaluation was conducted after 3, 6 and 9 months by an online survey. In sum, the new working method was applied to 43 of 137 clients, and tools were used 105 times. Opinions on perceived changes, benefit, and practicability varied widely. Although tools were developed in co-creation with all stakeholders, several professionals' satisfaction with the developed way of working is lower than expected and its adoption lags.

The Use of Extended Reality in Rehabilitation for Patients with Acquired Brain Injury: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Extended reality (XR) seems promising for rehabilitation for people with acquired brain injury in terms of reducing professional supervision, faster recovery, shorter hospital stays, and reduced expenses. Since there is no overview this scoping review describes how XR can be utilized in rehabilitation, particularly for people with acquired brain injury (ABI). METHODS: The Arksey and O'Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline were followed. Studies between 2010 and May 2022 screened from healthcare as well as technical databases were imported in RAYYAN. Three researchers selected relevant articles in three rounds based on title, abstract and full text. RESULTS: 75 articles were included in this scoping review. Most studies used VR as technology with therapy objectives in three main categories: cognitive, physical and diagnostic. The outcomes of the studies show potential and promising results of the use of XR, and enthusiasm with as well patients as professionals. A selection of four domains of the NASSS framework: condition, technology, value proposition and adopters were reported. Important lessons learned by the included studies are development of XR software, improvement of the hardware, improving feeling of safety and giving support to the patient, and support healthcare professionals for acceptance of XR. DISCUSSION: the use of XR for people with ABI has potential and is promising but not common practice yet. Future research should focus on implementation factors with a diverse and inclusive patient group using service modelling.

Collaboration for Developing and Sustaining Community Dementia-Friendly Initiatives: A Realist Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Dementia-friendly communities (DFCs) are seen as key to the inclusion and participation of people with dementia and carers. Dementia-friendly initiatives (DFIs) are important building blocks for the growth of DFCs. The collaboration between different stakeholders is a central aspect in developing and sustaining DFIs. AIM: This study tests and refines an initial theory about collaborating for DFIs with special attention for the involvement of people with dementia and their carers during the collaboration for DFIs. The realist approach is used for deepening contextual aspects, mechanisms, outcomes, and its explanatory power. METHODS: A participatory case study design using qualitative data (focus groups, observations, reflections, minutes from meetings, and exit interviews) was executed in four Dutch municipalities that have ambitions to become dementia- friendly communities. RESULTS: The refined theory on the collaboration for DFIs incorporates contextual aspects such as diversity, shared insights, and clarity. It draws attention to the importance of mechanisms such as the recognition of efforts and progress, informal distributed leadership, interdependency, belonging, significance, and commitment. These mechanisms resonate with feeling useful and feeling collectively powerful in the collaboration. The outcomes of collaboration were activation, getting new ideas, and fun. Our findings address how stakeholders' routines and perspectives impact the involvement of people with dementia and their carers during collaboration. CONCLUSION: This study provides detailed information about collaboration for DFIs. The collaboration for DFIs is largely influenced by feeling useful and collectively powerful. Further research is needed to understand how these mechanisms can be triggered with the involvement of people with dementia and their carers in the heart of the collaboration.

The predictive validity of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community.

BACKGROUND: If brief and easy to use self report screening tools are available to identify frail elderly, this may avoid costs and unnecessary assessment of healthy people. This study investigates the predictive validity of three self-report instruments for identifying community-dwelling frail elderly. METHODS: This is a prospective study with 1-year follow-up among community-dwelling elderly aged 70 or older (n = 430) to test sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predicted values of the Groningen Frailty Indicator, Tilburg Frailty Indicator and Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire on development of disabilities, hospital admission and mortality. Odds ratios were calculated to compare frail versus non-frail groups for their risk for the adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Adjusted odds ratios show that those identified as frail have more than twice the risk (GFI, 2.62; TFI, 2.00; SPQ, 2,49) for developing disabilities compared to the non-frail group; those identified as frail by the TFI and SPQ have more than twice the risk of being admitted to a hospital. Sensitivity and specificity for development of disabilities are 71% and 63% (GFI), 62% and 71% (TFI) and 83% and 48% (SPQ). Regarding mortality, sensitivity for all tools are about 70% and specificity between 41% and 61%. For hospital admission, SPQ scores the highest for sensitivity (76%). CONCLUSION: All three instruments do have potential to identify older persons at risk, but their predictive power is not sufficient yet. Further research on these and other instruments is needed to improve targeting frail elderly.

A disability prevention programme for community-dwelling frail older persons.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and justify a primary care interdisciplinary programme for community-dwelling frail older people aimed to prevent disability. BACKGROUND: Disability is a negative outcome of frailty among older persons. Policy reports and research studies emphasize the need for programmes to reduce disability progression. Between 2008 and 2010 we developed such a programme. DEVELOPMENT: Following the Intervention Mapping protocol, a research team and a multidisciplinary professional developed the programme. Literature reviews and an expert meeting led to identification of basic elements, theory-based methods and practical tools. THE PROGRAMME: The general practitioner and the practice nurse comprise the core team that can be extended by other professionals such as occupational and physical therapist. The programme includes six steps: (1) screening, (2) assessment, (3) analysis and preliminary action plan, (4) agreement on an action plan, (5) execution of the action plan (toolbox parts) and (6) evaluation and follow-up. The main features are: identifying risks for developing disability and targeting risk factors using professional standards and the 5A Behavioural Change Model to support self management, and identifying problems in performing activities and enhancing meaningful activities based on the Model of Human Occupation. Screening, individual assessment, tailor-made and client-centred care, self-management support, case management and interdisciplinary cooperation are important principles in delivering the programme. DISCUSSION: The disability-prevention programme seems promising for addressing the needs of frail older people for independent living and for targeting risk factors. Its feasibility and effects are currently being tested in a randomized controlled trial.

The psychometric properties of three self-report screening instruments for identifying frail older people in the community.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is highly prevalent in older people. Its serious adverse consequences, such as disability, are considered to be a public health problem. Therefore, disability prevention in community-dwelling frail older people is considered to be a priority for research and clinical practice in geriatric care. With regard to disability prevention, valid screening instruments are needed to identify frail older people in time. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the psychometric properties of three screening instruments: the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and the Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ). For validation purposes the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) was added. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 687 community-dwelling older people (> or = 70 years). Agreement between instruments, internal consistency, and construct validity of instruments were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: The response rate was 77%. Prevalence estimates of frailty ranged from 40% to 59%. The highest agreement was found between the GFI and the TFI (Cohen's kappa = 0.74). Cronbach's alpha for the GFI, the TFI and the SPQ was 0.73, 0.79 and 0.26, respectively. Scores on the three instruments correlated significantly with each other (GFI - TFI, r = 0.87; GFI - SPQ, r = 0.47; TFI - SPQ, r = 0.42) and with the GARS (GFI - GARS, r = 0.57; TFI - GARS, r = 0.61; SPQ - GARS, r = 0.46). The GFI and the TFI scores were, as expected, significantly related to age, sex, education and income. CONCLUSIONS: The GFI and the TFI showed high internal consistency and construct validity in contrast to the SPQ. Based on these findings it is not yet possible to conclude whether the GFI or the TFI should be preferred; data on the predictive values of both instruments are needed. The SPQ seems less appropriate for postal screening of frailty among community-dwelling older people.

Self-management among community-dwelling people with chronic conditions: Adapting evidence-based group programs using intervention mapping.

OBJECTIVE: Self-management is a core theme within chronic care and several evidence-based interventions (EBIs) exist to promote self-management ability. However, these interventions cannot be adapted in a mere copy-paste manner. The current study describes and demonstrates a planned approach in adapting EBI's in order to promote self-management in community-dwelling people with chronic conditions. METHODS: We used Intervention Mapping (IM) to increase the intervention's fit with a new context. IM helps researchers to take decisions about whether and what to adapt, while maintaining the working ingredients of existing EBI's. RESULTS: We present a case study in which we used IM to adapt EBI's to the Flemish primary care context to promote self-management in people with one or more chronic disease. We present the reader with a contextual analysis, intervention aims, and content, sequence and scope of the resulting intervention. CONCLUSION: IM provides an excellent framework in providing detailed guidance on intervention adaption to a new context, while preserving the essential working ingredients of EBI's. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The case study is exemplary for public health researchers and practitioners as a planned approach to seek and find EBI's, and to make adaptations.

Interventions to prevent disability in frail community-dwelling elderly: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is an interest for intervention studies aiming at the prevention of disability in community-dwelling physically frail older persons, though an overview on their content, methodological quality and effectiveness is lacking. METHODS: A search for clinical trials involved databases PubMed, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and manually hand searching. Trials that included community-dwelling frail older persons based on physical frailty indicators and used disability measures for outcome evaluation were included. The selection of papers and data-extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Out of 4602 titles, 10 papers remained that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 were of sufficient methodological quality and concerned 2 nutritional interventions and 8 physical exercise interventions. RESULTS: No evidence was found for the effect of nutritional interventions on disability measures. The physical exercise interventions involved 2 single-component programs focusing on lower extremity strength and 6 multi-component programs addressing a variety of physical parameters. Out of 8 physical exercise interventions, three reported positive outcomes for disability. There was no evidence for the effect of single lower extremity strength training on disability. Differences between the multi-component interventions in e.g. individualization, duration, intensity and setting hamper the interpretation of the elements that consistently produced successful outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is an indication that relatively long-lasting and high-intensive multicomponent exercise programs have a positive effect on ADL and IADL disability for community-living moderate physically frail older persons. Future research into disability prevention in physical frail older persons could be directed to more individualized and comprehensive programs.

What makes it so difficult for nurses to coach patients in shared decision making? A process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Primary care nurses play a crucial role in coaching patients in shared decision making about goals and actions. This presents a challenge to practice nurses, who are frequently used to protocol-based working routines. Therefore, an approach was developed to support nurses to coach patients in shared decision making. OBJECTIVES: To investigate how the approach was implemented and experienced by practice nurses and patients. DESIGN: A process evaluation was conducted using quantitative and qualitative methods. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen female practice nurses (aged between 28 and 55 years), working with people suffering from diabetes, COPD, asthma and/or cardiovascular diseases, participated. Nurses were asked to apply the approach to their chronically ill patients and to recruit patients (n = 10) willing to participate in an interview or an audio-recording of a consultation (n = 13); patients (13 women, 10 men) were aged between 41 and 88 years and suffered from diabetes, COPD or cardiovascular diseases. METHODS: The approach involved a framework for shared decision making about goals and actions, a tool to explore the patient perspective, a patient profiles model and a training course. Interviews (n = 15) with nurses, a focus group with nurses (n = 9) and interviews with patients (n = 10) were conducted. Nurses filled in a questionnaire about their work routine before, during and after the training course. They were asked to deliver audiotapes of their consultations (n = 13). RESULTS: Overall, nurses felt that the approach supported them to coach patients in shared decision making. Nurses had become more aware of their own attitudes and learning needs and reported to have had more in-depth discussions with patients. The on-the-job coaching was experienced as valuable. However, nurses struggled to integrate the approach in routine care. They experienced the approach as different to their protocol-based routines and expressed the importance of receiving support and the need for integration of the approach into the family physician practice. CONCLUSION: This study shows that changing practice nurses' role from medical experts to coaches in shared decision making is very complex and requires paying attention to skills and attitudes, as well as to contextual factors. Our results indicate that more time and training might be needed for this role transition. Moreover, it might be worthwhile to focus on organizational learning, in order to increase an organization's capacity to change work routines in a collaborative process. Future research into the development and evaluation of health coaching approaches, focusing on shared decision making, is necessary.