Suchergebnisse

Background: In the Netherlands, new legislation on organ donation was implemented, based on a "opt-out" consent system, which means that all adults are presumed to consent for organ donation, unless they actively register their decision not to donate. A public information campaign preceded the law change. In the Netherlands, 29% of the population has limited health literacy (LHL). The aim of the study was to gain insight in the information needs of Dutch citizens with LHL regarding organ donation and the new legislation, as well as in their preferred information channels. Methods: A qualitative study was performed; 30 people participated in four focus groups and six individual interviews. Transcripts were coded, interviews were thematically analysed. Results: People with LHL need specific information to make an informed decision on organ donation. Relevant topics: 1) choice options, 2) eligibility, 3) role of partner and/or family, 4) impact on quality of care, and 5) process of organ donation. Information should be easy to understand. Conclusion: Current standard materials are too difficult and abstract. People with LHL require personal support to tailor general information to their personal situation, and practical help to actually register their choice. Suggestions on how to improve information is provided.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, people have been confronted with a large amount of information about the virus and the governmental measures against its spreading. However, more than a quarter of individuals have limited health literacy (HL), meaning that they have difficulty finding, understanding, and applying health information. The purpose of this interview study was to investigate how individuals with limited HL acquire information about COVID-19 and governmental measures, what difficulties they experience in understanding and applying it, and what may be needed to overcome these difficulties. We also addressed other problems that they might face as a result of the pandemic. Using our findings, we aimed to make recommendations on the possible role of primary care in informing and supporting patients with limited HL during the pandemic. METHODS: Between June and October 2020, 28 individuals with limited HL were interviewed by phone (age range 20–84). The interviews were semi-structured and focused on the first months of the pandemic in the Netherlands (March/April/May 2020). RESULTS: The participants generally found COVID-19-related information abundant and complicated, and sometimes contradictory. Information provision by their own health care professionals was highly appreciated, especially in the context of chronic illnesses. General health care problems resulting from COVID-19 measures were postponement of regular care and difficulty with digital contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with limited HL may benefit from provision of COVID-19-related information and support by their own health care providers. This applies in particular to patients with chronic illnesses. Primary care professionals are in the ideal position to take this role.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, people have been confronted with a large amount of information about the virus and the governmental measures against its spreading. However, more than a quarter of individuals have limited health literacy (HL), meaning that they have difficulty finding, understanding, and applying health information. The purpose of this interview study was to investigate how individuals with limited HL acquire information about COVID-19 and governmental measures, what difficulties they experience in understanding and applying it, and what may be needed to overcome these difficulties. We also addressed other problems that they might face as a result of the pandemic. Using our findings, we aimed to make recommendations on the possible role of primary care in informing and supporting patients with limited HL during the pandemic. METHODS: Between June and October 2020, 28 individuals with limited HL were interviewed by phone (age range 20-84). The interviews were semi-structured and focused on the first months of the pandemic in the Netherlands (March/April/May 2020). RESULTS: The participants generally found COVID-19-related information abundant and complicated, and sometimes contradictory. Information provision by their own health care professionals was highly appreciated, especially in the context of chronic illnesses. General health care problems resulting from COVID-19 measures were postponement of regular care and difficulty with digital contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with limited HL may benefit from provision of COVID-19-related information and support by their own health care providers. This applies in particular to patients with chronic illnesses. Primary care professionals are in the ideal position to take this role.

Background: In the Netherlands, new legislation on organ donation was implemented, based on a "opt-out" consent system, which means that all adults are presumed to consent for organ donation, unless they actively register their decision not to donate. A public information campaign preceded the law change. In the Netherlands, 29% of the population has limited health literacy (LHL). The aim of the study was to gain insight in the information needs of Dutch citizens with LHL regarding organ donation and the new legislation, as well as in their preferred information channels. Methods: A qualitative study was performed; 30 people participated in four focus groups and six individual interviews. Transcripts were coded, interviews were thematically analysed. Results: People with LHL need specific information to make an informed decision on organ donation. Relevant topics: 1) choice options, 2) eligibility, 3) role of partner and/or family, 4) impact on quality of care, and 5) process of organ donation. Information should be easy to understand. Conclusion: Current standard materials are too difficult and abstract. People with LHL require personal support to tailor general information to their personal situation, and practical help to actually register their choice. Suggestions on how to improve information is provided.

BACKGROUND: In the last decade, the attention for health literacy has increased in the European Union. This is due to three main reasons. First, reviews have shown that inadequate health literacy is associated with worse health outcomes, higher health care use and expenditure. Second, in all European countries the population is aging and the number of chronically ill people is rising. Improving health literacy in this group can offer greater opportunities to take an active part in society, be independent and improve quality of life. Third, since most research on health literacy has been conducted outside Europe and relatively little is known about the development of health literacy interventions and its effects on outcome measures in European countries. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence on the effectiveness of health literacy interventions in the European Union published between 1995 and 2018. METHODS: Searches have been performed in Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library, PsychINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and SCOPUS for publications on health literacy intervention studies in European Union countries. Studies were included if the research was conducted in one or more Member States of the European Union, the publication described an intervention study, the intervention was aimed at health literacy, the publication described an outcome measure related to health literacy and the publication was written in English, French or German. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included. Three types of interventions were identified; aimed at improving health literacy, tailored to different health literacy levels and aimed at improving health outcomes in general that differentiated in effects for people with different health literacy levels. Most interventions identified in the review focus on the functional level of health literacy or numeracy. The strength of evidence from the European health literacy intervention studies was low and there was a huge heterogeneity in study design, measurement tools and outcomes measured. CONCLUSIONS: Promising interventions were tailored to the needs of patients, addressing functional, interactive and critical skills and use not difficult animated spoken text. Future research should focus on the development and assessment of such interventions and use stronger designs.

BackgroundIn the last decade, the attention for health literacy has increased in the European Union. This is due to three main reasons. First, reviews have shown that inadequate health literacy is associated with worse health outcomes, higher health care use and expenditure. Second, in all European countries the population is aging and the number of chronically ill people is rising. Improving health literacy in this group can offer greater opportunities to take an active part in society, be independent and improve quality of life. Third, since most research on health literacy has been conducted outside Europe and relatively little is known about the development of health literacy interventions and its effects on outcome measures in European countries. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence on the effectiveness of health literacy interventions in the European Union published between 1995 and 2018.MethodsSearches have been performed in Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library, PsychINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and SCOPUS for publications on health literacy intervention studies in European Union countries. Studies were included if the research was conducted in one or more Member States of the European Union, the publication described an intervention study, the intervention was aimed at health literacy, the publication described an outcome measure related to health literacy and the publication was written in English, French or German.ResultsA total of 23 studies were included. Three types of interventions were identified; aimed at improving health literacy, tailored to different health literacy levels and aimed at improving health outcomes in general that differentiated in effects for people with different health literacy levels. Most interventions identified in the review focus on the functional level of health literacy or numeracy. The strength of evidence from the European health literacy intervention studies was low and there was a huge heterogeneity in study design, measurement ...

Introduction Population ageing and increasing chronic illness burden have sparked interest in innovative care models. While self-management interventions (SMIs) are drawing increasing attention, evidence of their efficacy is mostly based on pairwise meta-analysis, generally derived from randomised controlled trials comparing interventions versus a control or no intervention. As such, relevant efficacy data for comparisons among different SMIs that can be applied to specific chronic conditions are missing. Therefore, the relevance of the available evidence for decision-making at clinical, organisational and policy levels is limited. Aim To identify, compare and rank the most effective and cost-effective SMIs for adults with four high-priority chronic conditions: type 2 diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,and heart failure. Methods and analysis All activities will be conducted as part of the cost-effectiveness of self-management interventions in four high-priority chronic conditions in Europe(COMPAR-EU, Comparing effectiveness of self-management interventions in 4 high priority chronic diseases inEurope) Project, an European Union (EU)-funded project designed to bridge the gap between current knowledge and practice on SMIs. In the first phase of the project, we will develop and validate a taxonomy, and a Core Outcome Set for each condition. These activities will inform a series of systematic review and network meta-analysis about the effectiveness of SMIs. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the most effective SMIs and an evaluation of contextual factors. We will finally develop tailored decision-making tools for the different relevant stakeholders. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the local ethics committee (University Institute for Primary Care Research -IDIAP Jordi Gol). All patients and other stakeholders will provide informed consent prior to participation. This project has been funded by the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme ...

INTRODUCTION: Population ageing and increasing chronic illness burden have sparked interest in innovative care models. While self-management interventions (SMIs) are drawing increasing attention, evidence of their efficacy is mostly based on pairwise meta-analysis, generally derived from randomised controlled trials comparing interventions versus a control or no intervention. As such, relevant efficacy data for comparisons among different SMIs that can be applied to specific chronic conditions are missing. Therefore, the relevance of the available evidence for decision-making at clinical, organisational and policy levels is limited. AIM: To identify, compare and rank the most effective and cost-effective SMIs for adults with four high-priority chronic conditions: type 2 diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All activities will be conducted as part of the cost-effectiveness of self-management interventions in four high-priority chronic conditions in Europe(COMPAR-EU, Comparing effectiveness of self-management interventions in 4 high priority chronic diseases inEurope) Project, an European Union (EU)-funded project designed to bridge the gap between current knowledge and practice on SMIs. In the first phase of the project, we will develop and validate a taxonomy, and a Core Outcome Set for each condition. These activities will inform a series of systematic review and network meta-analysis about the effectiveness of SMIs. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the most effective SMIs and an evaluation of contextual factors. We will finally develop tailored decision-making tools for the different relevant stakeholders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the local ethics committee (University Institute for Primary Care Research - IDIAP Jordi Gol). All patients and other stakeholders will provide informed consent prior to participation. This project has been funded by the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation ...

Population ageing and increasing chronic illness burden have sparked interest in innovative care models. While self-management interventions (SMIs) are drawing increasing attention, evidence of their efficacy is mostly based on pairwise meta-analysis, generally derived from randomised controlled trials comparing interventions versus a control or no intervention. As such, relevant efficacy data for comparisons among different SMIs that can be applied to specific chronic conditions are missing. Therefore, the relevance of the available evidence for decision-making at clinical, organisational and policy levels is limited. To identify, compare and rank the most effective and cost-effective SMIs for adults with four high-priority chronic conditions: type 2 diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure. All activities will be conducted as part of the cost-effectiveness of self-management interventions in four high-priority chronic conditions in Europe(COMPAR-EU, Comparing effectiveness of self-management interventions in 4 high priority chronic diseases inEurope) Project, an European Union (EU)-funded project designed to bridge the gap between current knowledge and practice on SMIs. In the first phase of the project, we will develop and validate a taxonomy, and a Core Outcome Set for each condition. These activities will inform a series of systematic review and network meta-analysis about the effectiveness of SMIs. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the most effective SMIs and an evaluation of contextual factors. We will finally develop tailored decision-making tools for the different relevant stakeholders. Ethical approval was obtained from the local ethics committee (University Institute for Primary Care Research - IDIAP Jordi Gol). All patients and other stakeholders will provide informed consent prior to participation. This project has been funded by the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 754936). Results will be of interest to ...

Introduction : Self-management (SM) interventions are complex interventions and one of the main components of high-quality chronic disease care for which the incorporation of the perspectives of patients and their informal caregivers is crucial. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence exploring patients' and caregivers' perspectives on SM interventions. More precisely, we aim to 1) describe how they value the importance of outcomes of SM interventions, and 2) identify the factors that might impact on acceptability and feasibility of SM interventions based on their preferences and experiences. Methods and analysis : We will conduct four mixed-methods overviews as part of COMPAR-EU, a European Union (EU) funded project aimed to identify the most effective and cost-effective SM interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF), obesity, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We will search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for systematic reviews of studies addressing patients' preferences on outcomes, or their experiences with SM alongside their disease trajectory or with SM interventions, published in English. Selection of studies and data extraction will be conducted in pairs. We will assess the overlap of studies and methodological quality. We will follow a three-step synthesis process: 1) narrative synthesis for quantitative evidence, 2) thematic synthesis for qualitative evidence, and 3) integration of findings in the interpretation phase. Additionally, we will consult on the relevance of findings with patients and their caregivers. Systematic review registration : PROSPERO