The role of health insurance literacy in the process and outcomes of choosing a health insurance policy in the Netherlands.

In several countries, citizens are expected to be critical consumers when choosing a health insurance policy. However, there are indications that citizens do not always have the sufficient skills, so called health insurance literacy (HIL), to do this. We investigated whether the level of HIL among Dutch citizens is related to the way in which they experience the process of choosing a policy, and furthermore whether it is related to their health insurance choices. We obtained information by sending questionnaires to members of the Nivel Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel in 2020. Of the 1,500 approached, 806 panel members participated (response rate 54%). Our results indicate that, compared to those with a high HIL, respondents with a low HIL more often find choosing a health insurance policy difficult, not interesting, and boring, and less often consider it important and worthwhile. Furthermore, they make less use of the opportunity to switch from one health insurer to another. However, they do still opt for a supplementary insurance policy and a voluntary deductible to the same extent as citizens with a high HIL. We conclude that the HIL level among Dutch citizens is related to the way in which they experience the process of choosing a health insurance policy and to the extent to which they switch from one insurer to another. But it is not related to their health insurance choices. Follow-up research should focus on how citizens with a low HIL can be better supported when choosing a health insurance policy.

The relation between trust and the willingness of enrollees to receive healthcare advice from their health insurer.

BACKGROUND: In a healthcare system based on managed competition, it is important that health insurers are able to channel enrollees to preferred providers. This results in incentives for healthcare providers to improve the quality and reduce the price of care. One of the instruments to guide enrollees to preferred providers is by providing healthcare advice. In order to use healthcare advice as an effective instrument, it is important that enrollees accept the health insurer as a healthcare advisor. As trust in health insurers is not high, this may be an obstacle for enrollees to be receptive to the health insurer's advice. This study aims to investigate the association between trust in the health insurer and the willingness to receive healthcare advice from the health insurer in the Netherlands. In terms of receiving healthcare advice, we examine both enrollees' willingness to approach the health insurer themselves and their willingness to be approached by the health insurer. METHODS: In February 2021, a questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of the Dutch population. The questionnaire was completed by 885 respondents (response rate 59%). Respondents were asked about their willingness to receive healthcare advice, and trust in the health insurer was measured using a validated multiple item scale. Logistic regression models were conducted to analyse the results. RESULTS: Enrollees with more trust in the health insurer were more willing to approach their health insurer for healthcare advice (OR = 1.07, p = 0.00). In addition, a higher level of trust in the health insurer is significantly associated with the odds that enrollees would like it/really appreciate it if their health insurer actively approached them with healthcare advice (OR = 1.07, p = 0.00). The role of trust in the willingness to receive healthcare advice is not proven to differ between groups with regard to educational levels, health status or age. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that trust plays a role in the willingness to receive healthcare advice from the health insurer. The association between the two emphasizes the importance to increase enrollees' trust in the health insurer. As a result, health insurers may be better able to fulfil their role as healthcare advisor.

Defining practice variation and exploring influencing factors on needs assessment in home care nursing: A Delphi study.

AIM: To describe a Delphi study regarding practice variation in needs assessment by Dutch home care nurses, to define practice variation in home care nursing and explore which factors may have a role in this needs assessment. DESIGN: A Delphi study was conducted with the participation of home care representatives. METHOD: A Delphi questionnaire was developed, preceded by literature research and an expert meeting. The Delphi study took place between December 2020 and February 2021. The goal was to achieve a consensus level of at least 70%. RESULTS: After three rounds, 32 experts reached a consensus about definitions regarding variation in needs assessment, warranted and unwarranted variation. In total, 59 factors were determined related to (1) the client and health, (2) the clients' context, (3) nurses and (4) the nurses' context. Thirty-four factors scored warranted of influence and 18 (of 34) were client related. Most of the factors that scored unwarranted influencing needs assessment (17 of 26) were related to the home care nurses' context. CONCLUSION: Having a consensus about the definition of practice variation in needs assessment and possible influencing factors support the professionals to discuss and improve the unity and quality of their decision-making process in home care. This may contribute to more righteous care for clients in need of home care. IMPACT: Since 2015, home care nurses in the Netherlands are responsible for determining the amount, type and duration of care for clients in need of home care. This so-called needs assessment legitimizes the payment by health insurers. Signals of practice variation in needs assessment are heard in home care field. Although practice variation may be justified, it can lead to over or underuse of care, which may affect clients' outcomes. If we can identify influencing factors and find patterns that contribute to practice variation, we might gain a better understanding of the process and improve home care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: In this study, there was no patient or public involvement. Client representatives were included in this research as experts in the home care field, and they participated in three rounds of the Delphi study. They contributed by sharing their expert opinion on the definitions presented and the factors possibly influencing needs assessment.

Functional Dyspepsia and Irritable Bowel Syndrome are Highly Prevalent in Patients With Gallstones and Are Negatively Associated With Outcomes After Cholecystectomy: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study (PERFECT - Trial).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of FD and IBS in patients eligible for cholecystectomy and to investigate the association between presence of FD/ IBS and resolution of biliary colic and a pain-free state. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: More than 30% of patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis reports persisting pain postcholecystectomy. Coexistence of FD/IBS may contribute to this unsatisfactory outcome. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study (PERFECT-trial). Patients ≥18 years with abdominal pain and gallstones were included at 5 surgical outpatient clinics between 01/2018 and 04/2019. Follow-up was 6 months. Primary outcomes were prevalence of FD/IBS, and the difference between resolution of biliary colic and pain-free state in patients with and without FD/IBS. FD/IBS was defined by the Rome IV criteria, biliary colic by the Rome III criteria, and pain-free by an Izbicki Pain Score ≤10 and visual analogue scale ≤4. RESULTS: We included 401 patients with abdominal pain and gallstones (assumed eligible for cholecystectomy), mean age 52 years, 76% females. Of these, 34.9% fulfilled criteria for FD/IBS. 64.1% fulfilled criteria for biliary colic and 74.9% underwent cholecystectomy, with similar operation rates in patients with and without FD/IBS. Postcholecystectomy, 6.1% of patients fulfilled criteria for biliary colic, with no significant difference between those with and without FD/IBS at baseline (4.9% vs 8.6%, P = 0.22). Of all patients, 56.8% was pain-free after cholecystectomy, 40.7% of FD/IBS-group vs 64.4% of no FD/IBS-group, P < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: One third of patients eligible for cholecystectomy fulfil criteria for FD/IBS. Biliary colic is reported by only a few patients postcholecys-tectomy, whereas nonbiliary abdominal pain persists in >40%, particularly in those with FD/IBS precholecystectomy. Clinicians should take these symptom-dependent outcomes into account in their shared decision-making process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register NTR-7307. Registered on 18 June 2018.

Public engagement in decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 epidemic: Views and expectations of the 'publics'.

BACKGROUND: In the management of epidemics, like COVID-19, trade-offs have to be made between reducing mortality and morbidity and minimizing socioeconomic and political consequences. Traditionally, epidemic management (EM) has been guided and executed attentively by experts and policymakers. It can, however, still be controversial in the public sphere. In the last decades, public engagement (PE) has been successfully applied in various aspects of healthcare. This leads to the question if PE could be implemented in EM decision-making. METHODS: From June to October 2020, seven deliberative discussion focus groups were executed with 35 Dutch citizens between 19 and 84 years old. Their views on PE in COVID-19 management were explored. The deliberative approach allows for the education of participants on the topic before the discussion. The benefits, barriers, timing and possible forms of PE in EM were discussed. RESULTS: Almost all participants supported PE in EM, as they thought that integrating their experiences and ideas would benefit the quality of EM, and increase awareness and acceptance of measures. A fitting mode for PE was consultation, as it was deemed important to provide the public with possibilities to share ideas and feedback; however, final authority remained with experts. The publics could particularly provide input about communication campaigns and control measures. PE could be executed after the first acute phase of the epidemic and during evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: This paper describes the construction of an empirically informed framework about the values and conditions for PE in EM from the perspective of the public. Participants expressed support to engage certain population groups and considered it valuable for the quality and effectiveness of EM; however, they expressed doubts about the feasibility of PE and the capabilities of citizens. In future studies, these results should be confirmed by a broader audience. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patients or members of the public were involved in the construction and execution of this study. This study was very exploratory, to gain a first insight into the views of the public in the Netherlands, and will be used to develop engagement practices accordingly. At this stage, the involvement of the public was not yet appropriate.

Exploring variation of coverage and access to dental care for adults in 11 European countries: a vignette approach.

BACKGROUND: Oral health, coupled with rising awareness on the impact that limited dental care coverage has on oral health and general health and well-being, has received increased attention over the past few years. The purpose of the study was to compare the statutory coverage and access to dental care for adult services in 11 European countries using a vignette approach. METHODS: We used three patient vignettes to highlight the differences of the dimensions of coverage and access to dental care (coverage, cost-sharing and accessibility). The three vignettes describe typical care pathways for patients with the most common oral health conditions (caries, periodontal disease, edentulism). The vignettes were completed by health services researchers knowledgeable on dental care, dentists, or teams consisting of a health systems expert working together with dental specialists. RESULTS: Completed vignettes were received from 11 countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Republic of Ireland (Ireland), Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden. While emergency dental care, tooth extraction and restorative care for acute pain due to carious lesions are covered in most responding countries, root canal treatment, periodontal care and prosthetic restoration often require cost-sharing or are entirely excluded from the benefit basket. Regular dental visits are also limited to one visit per year in many countries. Beyond financial barriers due to out-of-pocket payments, patients may experience very different physical barriers to accessing dental care. The limited availability of contracted dentists (especially in rural areas) and the unequal distribution and lack of specialised dentists are major access barriers to public dental care. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results, statutory coverage of dental care varies across European countries, while access barriers are largely similar. Many dental services require substantial cost-sharing in most countries, leading to high out-of-pocket spending. Socioeconomic status is thus a main determinant for access to dental care, but other factors such as geography, age and comorbidities can also inhibit access and affect outcomes. Moreover, coverage in most oral health systems is targeted at treatment and less at preventative oral health care.

Dynamic Public Perceptions of the Coronavirus Disease Crisis, the Netherlands, 2020.

A key component of outbreak control is monitoring public perceptions and public response. To determine public perceptions and public responses during the first 3 months of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in the Netherlands, we conducted 6 repeated surveys of ≈3,000 persons. Generalized estimating equations analyses revealed changes over time as well as differences between groups at low and high risk. Overall, respondents perceived the risks associated with COVID-19 to be considerable, were positive about the mitigation measures, trusted the information and the measures from authorities, and adopted protective measures. Substantial increases were observed in risk perceptions and self-reported protective behavior in the first weeks of the outbreak. Individual differences were based mainly on participants' age and health condition. We recommend that authorities constantly adjust their COVID-19 communication and mitigation strategies to fit public perceptions and public responses and that they tailor the information for different groups.

Why do people not switch insurer in a market-based health insurance market? Empirical evidence from the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In market-based systems, the possibility to switch is an important precondition for a well-functioning health insurance market. To assess whether such a market works as intended, insight into the considerations and perceived barriers of insured is needed. This study examines the rates and reasons for not switching health insurer in the Netherlands, and whether these reasons differ between the general population and the population of people with a chronic illness. METHODS: We made use of survey data collected in 2017 among two panels representing the general population (n = 659, response 44%) and the chronically ill population (n = 1593, response 86%). RESULTS: We found differences regarding the reasons for not switching insurer. The chronically ill population seems to attach more importance to reasons related to the coverage of the health plan, whereas the general population is more focused on the level of service. Some people who considered switching experienced barriers, however, these barriers were not significantly more experienced by the chronically ill population. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals differences between the general population and the chronically ill population when examining reasons for not switching related to quality and coverage. A subset from the people who initially considered to switch experienced barriers which might have altered their decision. Further research is recommended to include questions about information search behaviour to examine which consumers make an informed decision for not switching, and for whom barriers limit switching.

Does the chronically ill population in the Netherlands switch their health insurer as often as the general population? Empirical evidence from a nationwide survey study.

BACKGROUND: Consumer mobility is an important aspect of a health insurance system based on managed competition. Both the general population and insured with a chronic illness should enjoy an equal opportunity to switch their insurer every year. We studied possible differences in the rates of switching between these two groups in the Netherlands. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was sent to 1500 members of Nivel's Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel (response rate: 47%) and to 1911 chronically ill members of the National Panel of the Chronically ill and Disabled (response rate: 84%) in February 2016. Associations between switching and background characteristics were estimated using logistic regression analyses with interaction effects. RESULTS: In general, we did not find significant differences in switching rates between the general population and chronically ill population. However, a combination of the population and background characteristics demonstrated that young insured with a chronic illness switched significantly less often than young insured from the general population (1% versus 17%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that the group of young people with a chronic illness is less inclined to switch insurer. This observation suggests that this group might either face difficulties or barriers which prevents them from switching, or that they experience a high level of satisfaction with their current insurer. Further research should therefore focus on unravelling the mechanisms which explain the differences in switching rates.

To what degree do patients actively choose their healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP? A video observation study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries in Europe have implemented managed competition and patient choice during the last decade. With the introduction of managed competition, health insurers also became an important stakeholder. They purchase services on behalf of their customers and are allowed to contract healthcare providers selectively. It has, therefore, become increasingly important to take one's insurance into account when choosing a provider. There is little evidence that patients make active choices in the way that policymakers assume they do. This research aims to investigate, firstly, the role of patients in choosing a healthcare provider at the point of referral, then the role of the GP and, finally, the influence of the health insurer/insurance policies within this process. METHODS: We videotaped a series of everyday consultations between Dutch GPs and their patients during 2015 and 2016. In 117 of these consultations, with 28 GPs, the patient was referred to another healthcare provider. These consultations were coded by three observers using an observation protocol which assessed the role of the patient, GP, and the influence of the health insurer during the referral. RESULTS: Patients were divided into three groups: patients with little or no input, patients with some input, and those with a lot of input. Just over half of the patients (56%) seemed to have some, or a lot of, input into the choice of a healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP. In addition, in almost half of the consultations (47%), GPs inquired about their patients' preferences regarding a healthcare provider. Topics regarding the health insurance or insurance policy of a patient were rarely (14%) discussed at the point of referral. CONCLUSIONS: Just over half of the patients appear to have some, or a lot of, input into their choice of a healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP. However, the remainder of the patients had little or no input. If more patient choice continues to be an important aim for policy makers, patients should be encouraged to actively choose the healthcare provider who best fits their needs and preferences.

Does shared decision-making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care?

Background: Increasing antibiotic resistance is recognized as a major threat to global health and is related to antibiotic prescription rates in primary care. Shared decision-making (SDM), the process in which patients and doctors participate together in making decisions, is argued to possibly promote more appropriate use of antibiotics and reduce prescribing. However, it is unknown whether in practice fewer antibiotics are prescribed where more SDM takes place. Objectives: To investigate whether more SDM is related to less antibiotic prescribing and whether this relationship differs between subgroups of patients (male/female and age groups). Patients and methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted among 2670 members of the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel to measure SDM (response rate 45%). Average practice-level SDM scores were calculated for 15 general practices. Data from routine electronic health records of 8192 adult patients of these general practices participating in the Nivel Primary Care Database were used to assess relevant illness episodes (acute cough, acute rhinosinusitis and urinary tract infection), the indication for antibiotics and antibiotic prescriptions. Logistic multilevel regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between practice-level SDM and patient-level antibiotic prescriptions. Results: In practices where more SDM takes place, general practitioners prescribed fewer antibiotics for adult patients under the age of 40 years in preference-sensitive situations (i.e. situations in which antibiotics could be considered according to clinical guidelines). Conclusions: SDM can be a framework to reduce the prescribing of antibiotics and thus to control antibiotic resistance.

Advice from the health insurer as a channelling strategy: a natural experiment at a Dutch health insurance company.

BACKGROUND: In a health care system based on managed competition it is important that health insurers are able to channel their enrolees to preferred care providers. However, enrolees are often very negative about financial incentives and any limitations in their choice of care provider. Therefore, a Dutch health insurance company conducted an experiment to study the effectiveness of a new method of channelling their enrolees. This method entails giving enrolees advise on which physiotherapists to choose when they call customer service. Offering this advice as an extra service is supposed to improve service quality ratings. Objective of this study is to evaluate this channelling method on effectiveness and the impact on service quality ratings. METHODS: In this experiment, one of the health insurer's customer service call teams (pilot team) began advising enrolees on their choice of physiotherapist. Three data sources were used. Firstly, all enrolees who called customer service received an online questionnaire in order to measure their evaluation of the quality of service. Enrolees who were offered advice received a slightly different questionnaire which, in addition, asked about whether they intended to follow the advice they were offered. Multilevel regression analysis was conducted to analyse the difference in service quality ratings between the pilot team and two comparable customer service teams before and after the implementation of the channelling method. Secondly, employees logged each call, registering, if they offered advice, whether the enrolee accepted it, and if so, which care provider was advised. Thirdly, data from the insurance claims were used to see if enrolees visited the recommended physiotherapist. RESULTS: The results of the questionnaire show that enrolees responded favorably to being offered advice on the choice of physiotherapist. Furthermore, 45% of enrolees who received advice and then went on to visit a care provider, followed the advice. The service quality ratings were higher compared to control groups. However, it could not be determined whether this effect was entirely due to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Channelling enrolees towards preferred care providers by offering advice on their choice of care provider when they call customer service is successful. The effect on service quality seems positive, although a causal relationship could not be determined.

[The conversation with the patient is essential for good pharmacotherapeutic care]. / Het gesprek met de patiënt is essentieel voor goede farmacotherapeutische zorg.

Frail elderly with polypharmacy are at greater risk of preventable medication-related health damage. To improve medication safety, the healthcare field prepared, in consultation with the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate, a number of guidelines and standards containing conditions for safe prescribing. According to these standards the active involvement of patients by health care professionals is essential for good pharmacotherapeutic care. However, two studies with patients show that there is still room for improvement. According to patients, they can be (even) better informed about changes in their medication. Also the caregivers could communicate more clearly who is the central contact point and who is ultimately responsible for the medication. Patients are not sufficiently informed on this. Furthermore, there is uncertainty about how and why medication reviews are performed. More explanation to patients about this is desirable. In addition, patients experience that keeping their medication list up to date and transferring medication data between health care providers could be improved. Finally, a group of patients welcomes the opportunity to co-decide on changes in their medication. In order to prescribe safely, it is crucial that caregivers actively involve patients in pharmacotherapeutic care and really enter into conversation with them about their medication.

Adherence to cancer treatment guidelines: influence of general and cancer-specific guideline characteristics.

Background: Guideline adherence remains a challenge in clinical practice, despite guidelines' ascribed potential to improve patient outcomes. We studied the level of adherence to recommendations from Dutch national cancer treatment guidelines, and the influence of general and cancer-specific guideline characteristics on adherence. Methods: Based on data from a national cancer registry, adherence was evaluated for 15 treatment recommendations for breast, colorectal, prostate and lung cancer, and melanoma. Recommendations were selected by representatives of the medical specialist associations responsible for developing and implementing the guidelines. We used multivariable multilevel analysis to calculate mean adherence and variation between individual hospitals. Results: Mean adherence to the different treatment recommendations ranged from 40 to 99%. Adherence differed only slightly between older and newer guidelines and between recommendations with low, moderate or high levels of evidence (range 79-84% and 77-91%, respectively), while adherence differed more between recommendations for different cancer types (range 54-99%), different treatment modalities (adherence ranged from 40 to 92%) or recommendations that advised against or recommended in favour of particular treatment (adherence ranged from 75 to 98%). Conclusion: We found significant variation in adherence between different cancer treatment guidelines. While some guideline characteristics that seem to explain this variation may be considered difficult to modify, the potential for variance across cancer types and treatment modalities suggests that adherence could be further improved. At the same time, these results warrant tailored strategies for the improvement of adherence to clinical practice guidelines.

Health assessments for health governance-concepts and methodologies.

Background: For better supporting the science-governance interface, the potential of health assessments appears underrated. Aims: To identify what various types of health assessment have in common; how they differ; which assessment(s) to apply for which purpose; and what needs and options there are for future joint development. Methods: This review is based on five types of health assessment: monitoring/surveillance/reporting, assessment of health impact, of health technology, of health systems performance, health-related economic assessment. The approach is exploratory and includes: applying an agreed set of comparative criteria; circulating and supplementing synoptic tables; and interpreting the results. Results: Two of the assessments deal with the question 'Where do we stand?', two others with variants of 'What if' questions. Economic Assessment can take place in combination with any of the others. The assessments involve both overall 'procedures' and a variety of 'methods' which inescapably reflect some subjective assumptions and decisions, e.g. on issue framing. Resources and assistance exist for all these assessments. The paper indicates which type of assessment is appropriate for what purpose. Conclusions: Although scientific soundness of health assessments is not trivial to secure, existing types of health assessment can be interpreted as a useful 'toolkit' for supporting governance. If current traces of 'silo' thinking can be overcome, the attainability of a more unified culture of health assessments increases and such assessments might more widely be recognized as a prime, 'tried and tested' way to voice Public Health knowledge and to support rational governance and policy-making.

Self-monitoring of health data by patients with a chronic disease: does disease controllability matter?

BACKGROUND: There is a growing emphasis on self-monitoring applications that allow patients to measure their own physical health parameters. A prerequisite for achieving positive effects is patients' willingness to self-monitor. The controllability of disease types, patients' perceived self-efficacy and health problems could play an essential role in this. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between patients' willingness to self-monitor and a range of disease and patient specific variables including controllability of disease type, patients' perceived self-efficacy and health problems. METHODS: Data regarding 627 participants with 17 chronic somatic disease types from a Dutch panel of people with chronic diseases have been used for this cross-sectional study. Perceived self-efficacy was assessed using the general self-efficacy scale, perceived health problems using the Physical Health Composite Score (PCS). Participants indicated their willingness to self-monitor. An expert panel assessed for 17 chronic disease types the extent to which patients can independently keep their disease in control. Logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Patients' willingness to self-monitor differs greatly among disease types: patients with diabetes (71.0%), asthma (59.6%) and hypertension (59.1%) were most willing to self-monitor. In contrast, patients with rheumatism (40.0%), migraine (41.2%) and other neurological disorders (42.9%) were less willing to self-monitor. It seems that there might be a relationship between disease controllability scores and patients' willingness to self-monitor. No evidence is found of a relationship between general self-efficacy and PCS scores, and patients' willingness to self-monitor. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first evidence that patients' willingness to self-monitor might be associated with disease controllability. Further research should investigate this association more deeply and should focus on how disease controllability influences willingness to self-monitor. In addition, since willingness to self-monitor differed greatly among patient groups, it should be taken into account that not all patient groups are willing to self-monitor.

Do social norms play a role in explaining involvement in medical decision-making?

BACKGROUND: Patients' involvement in medical decision-making is crucial to provide good quality of care that is respectful of, and responsive to, patients' preferences, needs and values. Whether people want to be involved in medical decision-making is associated with individual patient characteristics, and health status. However, the observation of differences in whether people want to be involved does not in itself provide an explanation. Insight is necessary into mechanisms that explain people's involvement. This study aims to examine one mechanism, namely social norms. We make a distinction between subjective norms, that is doing what others think one ought to do, and descriptive norms, doing what others do. We focus on self-reported involvement in medical decision-making. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to members of the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel in May 2015 (response 46%; N = 974). A regression model was used to estimate the relationship between socio-demographics, social norms and involvement in medical decision-making. RESULTS: In line with our hypotheses, we observed that the more conservative social norms are, the less people are involved in medical decision-making. The effects for both types of norms were comparable. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that social norms play a role as a mechanism to explain involvement in medical decision-making. Our study offers a first insight into the possibility that the decision to be involved in medical decision-making is not as individual as it at first seems; someone's social context also plays a role. Strategies aimed at emphasizing patient involvement have to address this social context.

Social support plays a role in the attitude that people have towards taking an active role in medical decision-making.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing emphasis towards including patients in medical decision-making. However, not all patients are actively involved in such decisions. Research has so far focused mainly on the influence of patient characteristics on preferences for active involvement. However, it can be argued that a patient's social context has to be taken into account as well, because social norms and resources affect behaviour. This study aims to examine the role of social resources, in the form of the availability of informational and emotional support, on the attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to members of the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel (response 70 %; n = 1300) in June 2013. A regression model was then used to estimate the relation between medical and lay informational support and emotional support and the attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making. RESULTS: Availability of emotional support is positively related to the attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making only in people with a low level of education, not in persons with a middle and high level of education. The latter have a more positive attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making, irrespective of the level of emotional support available. People with better access to medical informational support have a more positive attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making; but no significant association was found for lay informational support. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that social resources are associated with the attitude towards taking an active role in medical decision-making. Strategies aimed at increasing patient involvement have to address this.

Compliance with referrals to medical specialist care: patient and general practice determinants: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In a gatekeeper system, primary care physicians and patients jointly decide whether or not medical specialist care is needed. However, it is the patient who decides to actually use the referral. Referral non-compliance could delay diagnosis and treatment. The objective of this study was to assess patient compliance with a referral to medical specialist care and identify patient and practice characteristics that are associated with it. METHODS: Observational study using data on 48,784 referrals to medical specialist care derived from electronic medical records of 58 general practices for the period 2008-2010. Referral compliance was based on claims data of medical specialist care. Logistic multilevel regression analyses were conducted to determine associations between patient and general practice characteristics and referral compliance. RESULTS: In 86.6% of the referrals, patients complied. Patient and not practice characteristics were significantly associated with compliance. Patients from deprived urban areas and patients aged 18-44 years were less likely to comply, whereas patients aged 65 years and older were more likely to comply. CONCLUSION: About 1 in 8 patients do not use their referral. These patients may not receive adequate care. Demographic and socio-economic factors appear to affect compliance. The results of this study may be used to make general practitioners more aware that some patients are more likely to be noncompliant with referrals.

Patients' Need for Tailored Comparative Health Care Information: A Qualitative Study on Choosing a Hospital.

BACKGROUND: The Internet is increasingly being used to provide patients with information about the quality of care of different health care providers. Although online comparative health care information is widely available internationally, and patients have been shown to be interested in this information, its effect on patients' decision making is still limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore patients' preferences regarding information presentation and their values concerning tailored comparative health care information. Meeting patients' information presentation needs might increase the perceived relevance and use of the information. METHODS: A total of 38 people participated in 4 focus groups. Comparative health care information about hip and knee replacement surgery was used as a case example. One part of the interview focused on patients' information presentation preferences, whereas the other part focused on patients' values of tailored information (ie, showing reviews of patients with comparable demographics). The qualitative data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: The following themes were deduced from the transcripts: number of health care providers to be presented, order in which providers are presented, relevancy of tailoring patient reviews, and concerns about tailoring. Participants' preferences differed concerning how many and in which order health care providers must be presented. Most participants had no interest in patient reviews that were shown for specific subgroups based on age, gender, or ethnicity. Concerns of tailoring were related to the representativeness of results and the complexity of information. A need for information about the medical specialist when choosing a hospital was stressed by several participants. CONCLUSIONS: The preferences for how comparative health care information should be presented differ between people. "Information on demand" and information about the medical specialist might be promising ways to increase the relevancy and use of online comparative health care information. Future research should focus on how different groups of people use comparative health care information for different health care choices in real life.