BackgroundPractice variation in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) care is common. International guidelines vary in their recommendations for the management of RPL couples, which could lead to an... Show moreBackgroundPractice variation in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) care is common. International guidelines vary in their recommendations for the management of RPL couples, which could lead to an increase of cross border reproductive care. Currently, the Dutch RPL guideline is being adapted from the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) guideline. We aim to identify discrepancies between RPL guidelines and RPL practice. These discrepancies could be considered in the development of a new guideline and implementation strategies to promote adherence to new recommendations.MethodsA nationwide survey on the management of RPL patients was conducted across all 107 hospital-based obstetrics and gynaecology practices in the Netherlands. The survey was sent via the Dutch Society for Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to all affiliated clinicians. The questionnaire consisted of 36 questions divided in four sections: clinician's demographics, RPL definition, investigations and therapy. The data were compared to the recommendations given by the Dutch national guideline and the most recent guideline of the ESHRE.ResultsAll hospital-based practices (100%; n = 107) filled in the online questionnaire. The majority of respondents defined RPL similarly, as two or more pregnancy losses (87.4%), not obligatory consecutive (93.1%). More than half of respondents routinely perform thrombophilia screening ( 58%), although not advised by the ESHRE, while thyroid function (57%), thyroid auto-immunity (27%) and & beta;2-glycoprotein antibodies (42%) in the context of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) are recommended but investigated less often. Regarding parental karyotyping, 20% of respondents stated they always perform parental karyotyping, without prior risk assessment. because of RPL. Treatment for hereditary thrombophilia was frequently (43.8% (n = 137)) prescribed although not recommended. And finally, a considerable part (12-16%) of respondents prescribe medication in case of unexplained RPL.ConclusionWhile many clinicians perform investigations recommended by the ESHRE, there is a considerable variation of RPL practice in the Netherlands. We identified discrepancies between RPL guidelines and RPL practice, providing possibilities to focus on multifaceted implementation strategies, such as educational intervention, local consensus processes and auditing and feedback. This will improve the quality of care provided to RPL patients and may diminish the necessity felt by patients to turn to multiple opinions or cross border reproductive care. Show less
Brouns, B.; Bodegom-Vos, L. van; Kloet, A. de; Vlieland, T.P.M.V.; Gil, I.L.C.; Souza, L.M.N.; ... ; Meesters, J.J.L. 2020
Background To improve the use of eRehabilitation after stroke, the identification of barriers and facilitators influencing this use in different healthcare contexts around the world is needed.... Show moreBackground To improve the use of eRehabilitation after stroke, the identification of barriers and facilitators influencing this use in different healthcare contexts around the world is needed. Therefore, this study aims to investigate differences and similarities in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation after stroke among Brazilian Healthcare Professionals (BHP) and Dutch Healthcare Professionals (DHP). Method A cross-sectional survey study including 88 statements about factors related to the use of eRehabilitation (4-point Likert scale; 1-4; unimportant-important/disagree-agree). The survey was conducted among BHP and DHP (physical therapists, rehabilitating physicians and psychologists). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse differences and similarities in factors influencing the use of eRehabilitation. Results ninety-nine (response rate 30%) BHP and 105 (response rate 37%) DHP participated. Differences were found in the top-10 most influencing statements between BHP and DHP BHP rated the following factors as most important: sufficient support from the organisation (e.g. the rehabilitation centre) concerning resources and time, and potential benefits of the use of eRehabilitation for the patient. DHP rated the feasibility of the use of eRehabilitation for the patient (e.g. a helpdesk and good instructions) as most important for effective uptake. Top-10 least important statements were mostly similar; both BHP and DHP rated problems caused by stroke (e.g. aphasia or cognitive problems) or problems with resources (e.g. hardware and software) as least important for the uptake of eRehabilitation. Conclusion The results indicate that the use of eRehabilitation after stroke by BHP and DHP is influenced by different factors. A tailored implementation strategy for both countries needs to be developed. Show less
