Evaluation of the chronic disease self-management program (CDSMP) among chronically ill older people in the Netherlands.

Many chronically ill older patients in the Netherlands have a combination of more than one chronic disease. There is therefore a need for self-management programs that address general management problems, rather than the problems related to a specific disease. The Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) seems to be very suitable for this purpose. In evaluations of the program that have been carried out in the United States and China, positive effects were found on self-management behaviour and health status. However, the program has not yet been evaluated in the Netherlands. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term and longer-term effects of the program among chronically ill older people in the Netherlands. One hundred and thirty-nine people aged 59 or older, with a lung disease, a heart disease, diabetes, or arthritis were randomly assigned to an intervention group (CDSMP) or a control group (care-as-usual). Demographic data and data on self-efficacy, self-management behaviour and health status were collected at three measurement moments (baseline, after 6 weeks, and after 6 months). The patients who participated rated the program with a mean of 8.5 points (range 0-10), and only one dropped out. However, our study did not yield any evidence for the effectiveness of the CDSMP on self-efficacy, self-management behaviour or health status of older patients in the Netherlands. Because the patients who participated were very enthusiastic, which was also indicated by very high mean attendance (5.6 out of 6 sessions) and only one dropout, it seems too early to conclude that the program is not beneficial for these patients.

[The diagnostic value of drawing a clock in geriatrics]. / De diagnostische waarde van de kloktekening in de geriatrie.

In this study the Clock Drawing Test (CDT) is used in a geriatric department to search for dementia in a population with somatic disorders (N=236). The demented group (N=113) has significant lower scores on every item and on the total score of the scoring method, compared to the non-demented group (N=123). A factor analysis of the scoring method shows that the fourteen items can be grouped into the three groups "contour", "digits", and "hands". A logistic regression shows that "hands" is the most discriminating, although this effect is moderate (sensitivity 59.3%, specificity 75.6%). Considering however that the CDT, compared to other screening tasks, appeals to an unique combination of cognitive functions, including visual semantic memory, working memory, visuospatial skills, attention and executive functions, it can be concluded that this test can contribute to the diagnoses of dementia, besides the traditionally used instruments.

Do older patients who refuse to participate in a self-management intervention in the Netherlands differ from older patients who agree to participate?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Refusal of patients to participate in intervention programs is an important problem in clinical trials but, in general, researchers devote relatively little attention to it. In this article, a comparison is made between patients who, after having been invited, agreed to participate in a self-management intervention (participants) and those who refused (refusers). Compared with other studies of refusers, relatively more information could be gathered with regard to both their characteristics and reasons for refusing, because all potential participants were invited personally. METHODS: Older patients from a Dutch outpatient clinic were invited to participate in a self-management intervention, and their characteristics were assessed. Demographic data were collected, as well as data on physical functioning and lack of emotional support. People who refused to participate were asked to give their reasons for refusing. RESULTS: Of the 361 patients invited, 267 (74%) refused participation. These refusers were more restricted in their mobility, lived further away from the location of the intervention, and had a partner more often than did the participants. No differences were found in level of education, age or gender. The main reasons given by respondents for refusing to participate were lack of time, travel distance, and transport problems. CONCLUSIONS: As in many studies, the refusal rate in this study is high, and seems to be related to physical mobility restrictions, travel distance and, partly, to availability of emotional support. These findings may be used to make the recruitment process more effective - for example, by offering transport to the location of the intervention.