Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Clin Rheumatol ; 39(4): 1131-1139, 2020 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31997083

ABSTRACT

To re-evaluate the adherence to clinical practice guidelines recommended disease activity-based management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice, among Dutch rheumatologists in the past decade. In 2007, disease activity was measured in only 16% of outpatient visits. All rheumatologists that participated in the 2007 study were invited to re-enter our study in 2016/2017. If necessary, data were supplemented with data from other rheumatologists. For all 26 rheumatologists who agreed to participate in our study, data were collected from 30 consecutive patients that visited the outpatient clinic. Per patient, data from four consecutive rheumatologist outpatient visits were collected. Since 2007, disease activity was measured more frequently in Dutch daily clinical practice, increasing from 16 to 79% of visits (2440/3081 visits). In addition, intensification of medication based on disease activity scores increased from 33 to 50% of visits (260/525 visits). DAS/DAS28 was the most frequently used disease activity measure (1596/2440 visits). There was a wide variation among rheumatologists in measuring disease activity and intensification of medication, 20-100% and 0-75% respectively. Over the past years, there has been a large improvement in disease activity assessment in daily clinical practice. Disease activity-based medication intensifications, also called tight control or treat to target, increased to a lesser extent. Large variation between different rheumatologists and clinics indicates that there is still room for improvement. Key Points • Following guideline dissemination disease activity is assessed more frequently (79%). • There is large variation between rheumatologists, indicating room for improvement. • Finding factors that explain variation is necessary to improve tight control in daily practice.


Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Guideline Adherence , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Rheumatology/trends , Aged , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Remission Induction , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
J Cancer Surviv ; 13(5): 703-712, 2019 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31347009

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to identify patients' experienced barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programs for patients with cancer. METHODS: We interviewed 34 patients in focus-group-interviews from three different hospital-types. We included patients with cancer who were either receiving curative treatment or had recently completed it. Barriers and facilitators were explored in six domains: (1) physical activity programs, (2) patients, (3) healthcare professionals (HCPs), (4) social setting, (5) organization, and (6) law and governance. RESULTS: We found 12 barriers and 1 facilitator that affect the implementation of physical activity programs. In the domain of physical activity programs, the barrier was physical activity programs not being tailored to the patient's needs. In the domain of patients, lacking responsibility for one's own health was a barrier. Knowledge and skills for physical activity programs and non-commitment of HCPs impeded implementation in the domain of HCPs. Barriers in the domain of organization included inconvenient place, time of day, and point in the health treatment schedule for offering the physical activity programs, inadequate capacity, inaccessibility of contact persons, lack of information about physical activity programs, non-involvement of the general practitioner in the cancer care process, and poor communication between secondary and primary HCPs. Insufficient insurance-coverage of physical activity programs was a barrier in the domain of law and governance. In the domain of physical activity programs, contact with peers facilitated implementation. We found no barriers or facilitators at the social setting. CONCLUSIONS: Factors affecting the implementation of physical activity programs occurred in various domains. Most of the barriers occurred in the domain of organization. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: An implementation strategy that deals with the barriers might improve the implementation of physical activity programs and quality of life of cancer survivors.


Subject(s)
Communication Barriers , Exercise Therapy/organization & administration , Exercise , Health Services Accessibility , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Attitude of Health Personnel , Cancer Survivors/psychology , Cancer Survivors/statistics & numerical data , Exercise Therapy/methods , Exercise Therapy/standards , Female , Focus Groups , Health Personnel , Health Services Accessibility/standards , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Implementation Science , Interviews as Topic , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/psychology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/standards , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Quality of Life , Social Facilitation
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL