Prior studies demonstrated the neonatal early-onset sepsis (EOS) calculator’s potential in drastically reducing antibiotic prescriptions, and its international adoption is increasing rapidly. To... Show morePrior studies demonstrated the neonatal early-onset sepsis (EOS) calculator’s potential in drastically reducing antibiotic prescriptions, and its international adoption is increasing rapidly. To optimize the EOS calculator’s impact, successful implementation is crucial. This study aimed to identify key barriers and facilitators to inform an implementation strategy. A multicenter crosssectional survey was carried out among physicians, residents, nurses and clinical obstetricians of thirteen Dutch hospitals. Survey development was prepared through a literature search and stakeholder interviews. Data collection and analysis were based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). A total of 465 stakeholders completed the survey. The main barriers concerned the expectance of the department’s capacity problems and the issues with maternal information transfer between departments. Facilitators concerned multiple relative advantages of the EOS calculator, including stakeholder education, EOS calculator integration in the electronic health record and existing positive expectations about the safety and effectivity of the calculator. Based on these findings, tailored implementation interventions can be developed, such as identifying early adopters and champions, conducting educational meetings tailored to the target group, creating ready-to-use educational materials, integrating the EOS calculator into electronic health records, creating a culture of collective responsibility among departments and collecting data to evaluate implementation success and innovation results. Show less
Autistic adults often experience health problems and a range of healthcare barriers. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate barriers and explore how primary care providers and autistic... Show moreAutistic adults often experience health problems and a range of healthcare barriers. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate barriers and explore how primary care providers and autistic adults want to improve their primary healthcare. Semi-structured interviews with three autistic adults, two parents of autistic children and six care providers, were performed to evaluate barriers in Dutch healthcare. Next, in a three-round Delphi-study, 21 autistic adults and 20 primary care providers rated barriers in primary healthcare and assessed recommendations based on usefulness and feasibility. In the thematically analysed interviews, 20 barriers in Dutch healthcare for autistic people were identified. In the Delphi-study, the primary care providers rated the negative impact of most barriers lower than the autistic adults. The Delphi-study resulted in 22 recommendations to improve primary healthcare for autistic adults, focused on: primary care providers (i.e. education in collaboration with autistic people), autistic adults (i.e. improvement of preparation for general practitioner-appointments) and organization of general practice (i.e. enhancement of continuity in care). In conclusion, primary care providers seem to assess healthcare barriers as less impactful than autistic adults. With the use of the Delphi-method, useful and feasible recommendations to improve primary healthcare for autistic adults were identified, based on the needs of autistic adults and primary care providers. Lay abstract Autistic adults often encounter different types of healthcare barriers. Because autistic adults also have an increased risk for health problems, the aim of this study was to evaluate barriers and to explore how primary care providers and autistic adults want to improve their primary healthcare. In this co-created study, semi-structured interviews with three autistic adults, two parents of autistic children and six care providers were performed to evaluate barriers in Dutch healthcare. Next, in the survey-study (using the Delphi-method including controlled feedback in three consecutive questionnaires), 21 autistic adults and 20 primary care providers rated the impact of barriers and the usefulness and feasibility of recommendations to improve primary healthcare. In the interviews, 20 barriers in Dutch healthcare for autistic people were found. In the survey-study, the primary care providers rated the negative impact of most barriers lower than the autistic adults. This survey-study resulted in 22 recommendations to improve primary healthcare focused on: primary care providers (including education in collaboration with autistic people), autistic adults (including improvement of preparation for general practitioner-appointments) and organization of general practice (including improvement of continuity in care). In conclusion, primary care providers seem to view healthcare barriers as less impactful than autistic adults. In this co-created study, recommendations to improve primary healthcare for autistic adults were identified, based on the needs of autistic adults and primary care providers. These recommendations provide a basis for primary care providers, autistic adults and their support network to start conversations about, for example, strategies to improve primary care providers' knowledge, autistic adults' preparation for a general practitioner-appointment and organization of primary care. Show less
Namiiro, F.B.; Nolens, B.; Rujumba, J.; Kiguli, S.; Batte, A.; Akker, T. van den 2023
Objectives We sought to understand the facilitators and barriers impacting utilisation of follow-up services for children born preterm as perceived by parents in a low-resource setting.Methods We... Show moreObjectives We sought to understand the facilitators and barriers impacting utilisation of follow-up services for children born preterm as perceived by parents in a low-resource setting.Methods We conducted a qualitative study at Mulago Hospital, Uganda, with parents of children born preterm and aged 22-38 months at the time of the study. We collected data using five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions. Data were analysed using thematic analysis informed by the social-ecological model.Results Ten subthemes emerged that could be grouped into three main themes: (1) Individual: parents' knowledge, parenting skills, perception of follow-up and infant's condition; (2) Relationship: support for the mother and information sharing; (3) Institution: facility setup, cost of care, available personnel and distance from the facility. Parents of preterm infants perceived receiving timely information, better understanding of prematurity and its complications, support from spouses, availability of free services and encouragement from health workers as facilitators for utilisation of follow-up services. Limited male involvement, parents' negative perception of follow-up, stable condition of infant, health facility challenges especially congestion at the hospital, distance and care costs were key barriers.Conclusion An interplay of facilitators and barriers at individual, interpersonal and health system levels encourage or deter parents from taking their preterm children for follow-up services. Improving utilisation of services will require educating parents on the importance of follow-up even when children are not sick, eliciting maternal support from spouses and peers and addressing health system gaps that make follow-up unattractive and costly. Show less
Background: Promoting health behaviors and preventing chronic diseases through a healthy lifestyle among those with a low socioeconomic status (SES) remain major challenges. eHealth interventions... Show moreBackground: Promoting health behaviors and preventing chronic diseases through a healthy lifestyle among those with a low socioeconomic status (SES) remain major challenges. eHealth interventions are a promising approach to change unhealthy behaviors in this target group.Objective: This review aims to identify key components, barriers, and facilitators in the development, reach, use, evaluation, and implementation of eHealth lifestyle interventions for people with a low SES. This review provides an overview for researchers and eHealth developers, and can assist in the development of eHealth interventions for people with a low SES.Methods: We performed a scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, using terms related to a combination of the following key constructs: eHealth, lifestyle, low SES, development, reach, use, evaluation, and implementation. There were no restrictions on the date of publication for articles retrieved upon searching the databases.Results: The search identified 1323 studies, of which 42 met our inclusion criteria. An update of the search led to the inclusion of 17 additional studies. eHealth lifestyle interventions for people with a low SES were often delivered via internet-based methods (eg, websites, email, Facebook, and smartphone apps) and offline methods, such as texting. A minority of the interventions combined eHealth lifestyle interventions with face-to-face or telephone coaching, or wearables (blended care). We identified the use of different behavioral components (eg, social support) and technological components (eg, multimedia) in eHealth lifestyle interventions. Facilitators in the development included iterative design, working with different disciplines, and resonating intervention content with users. Facilitators for intervention reach were use of a personal approach and social network, reminders, and self-monitoring. Nevertheless, barriers, such as technological challenges for developers and limited financial resources, may hinder intervention development. Furthermore, passive recruitment was a barrier to intervention reach. Technical difficulties and the use of self-monitoring devices were common barriers for users of eHealth interventions. Only limited data on barriers and facilitators for intervention implementation and evaluation were available.Conclusions: While we found large variations among studies regarding key intervention components, and barriers and facilitators, certain factors may be beneficial in building and using eHealth interventions and reaching people with a low SES. Barriers and facilitators offer promising elements that eHealth developers can use as a toolbox to connect eHealth with low SES individuals. Our findings suggest that one-size-fits-all eHealth interventions may be less suitable for people with a low SES. Future research should investigate how to customize eHealth lifestyle interventions to meet the needs of different low SES groups, and should identify the components that enhance their reach, use, and effectiveness. Show less
Lieshout, J. van; Lacroix, J.; Halteren, A. van; Teichert, M. 2022
Background: Growing numbers of people use medication for chronic conditions; nonadherence is common, leading to poor disease control. A web-based tool to identify an increased risk for nonadherence... Show moreBackground: Growing numbers of people use medication for chronic conditions; nonadherence is common, leading to poor disease control. A web-based tool to identify an increased risk for nonadherence with related potential individual barriers might facilitate tailored interventions and improve adherence.Objective: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a newly developed tool aimed at improving medication adherence. Methods: We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial in patients initiating cardiovascular or oral blood glucose-lowering medication. Participants were recruited from community pharmacies. They completed an online questionnaire comprising assessments of their risk for medication nonadherence and subsequently of barriers to adherence. In pharmacies belonging to the intervention group, individual barriers displayed in a graphical profile on a tablet were discussed by pharmacists and patients with high nonadherence risk in face-to-face meetings and shared with their general practitioners and practice nurses. Tailored interventions were initiated by pharmacists. Barriers of control patients were not presented nor discussed and these patients received usual care. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of the intervention on medication adherence at 8 months' follow-up between patients with an increased nonadherence risk from the intervention and control groups, calculated from dispensing data. Results: Data from 492 participants in 15 community pharmacies were available for analyses (intervention 253, 7 pharmacies; control 239, 8 pharmacies). The intervention had no effect on medication adherence (B=-0.01; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.57; P=.96), nor in the post hoc per-protocol analysis (B=0.19; 95% CI -0.50 to 0.89; P=.58). Conclusions: This study showed no effectiveness of a risk stratification and tailored intervention addressing personal barriers for medication adherence. Various potential explanations for lack of effectiveness were identified. These explanations relate, for instance, to high medication adherence in the control group, study power, and fidelity. Process evaluation should elicit possible improvements and inform the redesign of intervention and implementation. Show less
Buttgereit, T.; Palmowski, A.; Forsat, N.; Boers, M.; Witham, M.D.; Rodondi, N.; ... ; Buttgereit, F. 2021
Background: older people remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and evidence generated in younger populations cannot always be generalized to older patients.Objective: to identify key barriers... Show moreBackground: older people remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and evidence generated in younger populations cannot always be generalized to older patients.Objective: to identify key barriers and to discuss solutions to specific issues affecting recruitment and retention of older participants in clinical trials based on experience gained from six current European randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on older people.Methods: a multidisciplinary group of experts including representatives of the six RCTs held two networking conferences and compiled lists of potential barriers and solutions. Every item was subsequently allocated points by each study team according to how important it was perceived to be for their RCTs.Results: the six RCTs enrolled 7,612 older patients. Key barriers to recruitment were impaired health status, comorbidities and diverse health beliefs including priorities within different cultural systems. All trials had to increase the number of recruitment sites. Other measures felt to be effective included the provision of extra time, communication training for the study staff and a re-design of patient information. Key barriers for retention included the presence of severe comorbidities and the occurrence of adverse events. Long study duration, frequent study visits and difficulties accessing the study site were also mentioned. Solutions felt to be effective included spending more time maintaining close contact with the participants, appropriate measures to show appreciation and reimbursement of travel arrangements.Conclusion: recruitment and retention of older patients in trials requires special recognition and a targeted approach. Our results provide scientifically-based practical recommendations for optimizing future studies in this population. Show less
Rodrigues, T.R.C.; Buisonje, D.R. de; Keesman, M.; Reijnders, T.; Geer, J.E. van der; Janssen, V.R.; ... ; Evers, A.W.M. 2021
Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) pose a significant health threat and reduce both people's life expectancy and quality of life. Healthy living is a key component in the effective... Show moreBackground: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) pose a significant health threat and reduce both people's life expectancy and quality of life. Healthy living is a key component in the effective prevention and treatment of CVD. However, health care professionals (HCPs) experience difficulties in supporting lifestyle changes among their patients. eHealth can provide a solution to these barriers.Objective: This study aims to provide insights into the factors HCPs find important in the support of patients with CVD in the uptake of and adherence to a healthy lifestyle and the perceived facilitators of and barriers to using eHealth to provide lifestyle support to patients with CVD.Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 Dutch HCPs specializing in lifestyle support in cardiac care.Results: We identified 13 themes, of which the first 12 concerned lifestyle support in general and were related to intervention, patient, or health care. Throughout these themes, the use of eHealth reoccurred as a potential facilitator of or solution to barriers to lifestyle support. Our final theme specifically concerned barriers to the adoption and usability of eHealth.Conclusions: HCPs do recognize the potential advantages of eHealth while experiencing barriers to using digital tools. Incorporating their needs and values in the development of lifestyle support programs, especially eHealth, could increase their use and lead to a more widespread adoption of eHealth into health care. Show less
Versluis, A.; Luenen, S. van; Meijer, E.; Honkoop, P.J.; Pinnock, H.; Mohr, D.C.; ... ; Kleij, R.M.J.J. van der 2020
Background The implementation of eHealth applications in primary care remains challenging. Enhancing knowledge and awareness of implementation determinants is critical to build evidence-based... Show moreBackground The implementation of eHealth applications in primary care remains challenging. Enhancing knowledge and awareness of implementation determinants is critical to build evidence-based implementation strategies and optimise uptake and sustainability. Objectives We consider how evidence-based implementation strategies can be built to support eHealth implementation. Discussion What implementation strategies to consider depends on (potential) barriers and facilitators to eHealth implementation in a given situation. Therefore, we first discuss key barriers and facilitators following the five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Cost is identified as a critical barrier to eHealth implementation. Privacy, security problems, and a lack of recognised standards for eHealth applications also hinder implementation. Engagement of key stakeholders in the implementation process, planning the implementation of the intervention, and the availability of training and support are important facilitators. To support care professionals and researchers, we provide a stepwise approach to develop and apply evidence-based implementation strategies for eHealth in primary care. It includes the following steps: (1) specify the eHealth application, (2) define problem, (3) specify desired implementation behaviour, and (4) choose and (5) evaluate the implementation strategy. To improve the fit of the implementation strategy with the setting, the stepwise approach considers the phase of the implementation process and the specific context. Conclusion Applying an approach, as provided here, may help to improve the implementation of eHealth applications in primary care. Show less
Background. Assessment of sexual health is important in chronically ill patients, as many experience sexual dysfunction (SD). The general practice nurse (GPN) can play a crucial part in addressing... Show moreBackground. Assessment of sexual health is important in chronically ill patients, as many experience sexual dysfunction (SD). The general practice nurse (GPN) can play a crucial part in addressing SD.Objective. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine to which extent GPNs discuss SD with chronically ill patients and what barriers may refrained them from discussing SD. Furthermore, we examined which factors had an association with a higher frequency of discussing SD.Methods. A cross-sectional survey using a 48-item questionnaire was send to 637 GPNs across the Netherlands.Results. In total, 407 GPNs returned the questionnaire (response rate 63.9%) of which 337 completed the survey. Two hundred and twenty-one responding GPNs (65.6%) found it important to discuss SD. More than half of the GPNS (n = 179, 53.3%) never discussed SD during a first consultation, 60 GPNs (18%) never discussed SD during follow-up consultations. The three most important barriers for discussing SD were insufficient training (54.7%), 'reasons related to language and ethnicity' (47.5%) and 'reasons related to culture and religion' (45.8%). More than half of the GPNs thought that they had not enough knowledge to discuss SD (n = 176, 54.8%). A protocol on addressing SD would significantly increase discussing during SD.Conclusions. This study indicates that GPNs do not discuss SD with chronically ill patients routinely. Insufficient knowledge, training and reasons related to cultural diversity were identified as most important reasons for this practice pattern. Implementation of training in combination with guidelines on SD in the general practice could improve on the discussing of sexual health with chronic patients. Show less
