5 results on '"Korevaar, Joke C."'
Search Results
2. Selective prevention of cardiometabolic diseases: activities and attitudes of general practitioners across Europe.
- Author
-
Waard, Anne-Karien M de, Hollander, Monika, Korevaar, Joke C, Nielen, Mark M J, Carlsson, Axel C, Lionis, Christos, Seifert, Bohumil, Thilsing, Trine, Wit, Niek J de, Schellevis, François G, and Group, the SPIMEU Project
- Subjects
CARDIOVASCULAR disease prevention ,DIABETES risk factors ,METABOLIC disorders ,ATTITUDE (Psychology) ,CARDIOVASCULAR diseases risk factors ,CONCEPTUAL structures ,MEDICAL personnel ,RISK assessment ,SURVEYS ,DISEASE management ,PREVENTION ,DISEASE risk factors - Abstract
Background Cardiometabolic diseases (CMDs) are the number one cause of death. Selective prevention of CMDs by general practitioners (GPs) could help reduce the burden of CMDs. This measure would entail the identification of individuals at high risk of CMDs—but currently asymptomatic—followed by interventions to reduce their risk. No data were available on the attitude and the extent to which European GPs have incorporated selective CMD prevention into daily practice. Methods A survey among 575 GPs from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and Sweden was conducted between September 2016 and January 2017, within the framework of the SPIMEU-project. Results On average, 71% of GPs invited their patients to attend for CMD risk assessment. Some used an active approach (47%) while others used an opportunistic approach (53%), but these values differed between countries. Most GPs considered selective CMD prevention as useful (82%) and saw it as part of their normal duties (84%). GPs who did find selective prevention useful were more likely to actively invite individuals compared with their counterparts who did not find prevention useful. Most GPs had a disease management programme for individuals with risk factor(s) for cardiovascular disease (71%) or diabetes (86%). Conclusions Although most GPs considered selective CMD prevention as useful, it was not universally implemented. The biggest challenge was the process of inviting individuals for risk assessment. It is important to tailor the implementation of selective CMD prevention in primary care to the national context, involving stakeholders at different levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Evaluating the feasibility, effectiveness and costs of implementing person-centred follow-up care for childhood cancer survivors in four European countries: the PanCareFollowUp Care prospective cohort study protocol.
- Author
-
van Kalsbeek RJ, Korevaar JC, Rijken M, Haupt R, Muraca M, Kepák T, Kepakova K, Blondeel A, Boes S, Frederiksen LE, Essiaf S, Winther JF, Hermens RPMG, Kienesberger A, Loonen JJ, Michel G, Mulder RL, O'Brien KB, van der Pal HJH, Pluijm SMF, Roser K, Skinner R, Renard M, Uyttebroeck A, Follin C, Hjorth L, and Kremer LCM
- Subjects
- Adult, Child, Humans, Aftercare, Prospective Studies, Feasibility Studies, Longitudinal Studies, Europe, Cancer Survivors, Neoplasms therapy
- Abstract
Introduction: Long-term survival after childhood cancer often comes at the expense of late, adverse health conditions. However, survivorship care is frequently not available for adult survivors in Europe. The PanCareFollowUp Consortium therefore developed the PanCareFollowUp Care Intervention, an innovative person-centred survivorship care model based on experiences in the Netherlands. This paper describes the protocol of the prospective cohort study (Care Study) to evaluate the feasibility and the health economic, clinical and patient-reported outcomes of implementing PanCareFollowUp Care as usual care in four European countries., Methods and Analysis: In this prospective, longitudinal cohort study with at least 6 months of follow-up, 800 childhood cancer survivors will receive the PanCareFollowUp Care Intervention across four study sites in Belgium, Czech Republic, Italy and Sweden, representing different healthcare systems. The PanCareFollowUp Care Intervention will be evaluated according to the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework. Clinical and research data are collected through questionnaires, a clinic visit for multiple medical assessments and a follow-up call. The primary outcome is empowerment, assessed with the Health Education Impact Questionnaire. A central data centre will perform quality checks, data cleaning and data validation, and provide support in data analysis. Multilevel models will be used for repeated outcome measures, with subgroup analysis, for example, by study site, attained age, sex or diagnosis., Ethics and Dissemination: This study will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol has been reviewed and approved by all relevant ethics committees. The evidence and insights gained by this study will be summarised in a Replication Manual, also including the tools required to implement the PanCareFollowUp Care Intervention in other countries. This Replication Manual will become freely available through PanCare and will be disseminated through policy and press releases., Trial Registration Number: Netherlands Trial Register (NL8918; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8918)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. The European multistakeholder PanCareFollowUp project: novel, person-centred survivorship care to improve care quality, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and accessibility for cancer survivors and caregivers.
- Author
-
van Kalsbeek RJ, van der Pal HJH, Hjorth L, Winther JF, Michel G, Haupt R, Uyttebroeck A, O'Brien K, Kepakova K, Follin C, Muraca M, Kepak T, Araujo-Soares V, Bardi E, Blondeel A, Bouwman E, Brown MC, Frederiksen LE, Essiaf S, Hermens RPMG, Kienesberger A, Korevaar JC, Mader L, Mangelschots M, Mulder RL, van den Oever S, Rijken M, Roser K, Skinner R, Pluijm SMF, Loonen JJ, and Kremer LCM
- Subjects
- Europe, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Cancer Survivors statistics & numerical data, Caregivers economics, Caregivers psychology, Survivorship
- Abstract
Background: The majority of childhood cancer survivors are at risk of treatment-related adverse health outcomes. Survivorship care to mitigate these late effects is endorsed, but it is not available for many adult survivors of childhood cancer in Europe. The PanCareFollowUp project was initiated to improve their health and quality of life (QoL) by facilitating person-centred survivorship care., Methods: The PanCareFollowUp consortium was established in 2018, consisting of 14 project partners from ten European countries, including survivor representatives. The consortium will develop two PanCareFollowUp Interventions, including a person-centred guideline-based model of care (Care Intervention) and eHealth lifestyle coaching (Lifestyle Intervention). Their development will be informed by several qualitative studies and systematic reviews on barriers and facilitators for implementation and needs and preferences of healthcare providers (HCPs) and survivors. Implementation of the PanCareFollowUp Care Intervention as usual care will be evaluated prospectively among 800 survivors from Belgium, Czech Republic, Italy and Sweden for survivor empowerment, detection of adverse health conditions, satisfaction among survivors and HCPs, cost-effectiveness and feasibility. The feasibility of the PanCareFollowUp Lifestyle Intervention will be evaluated in the Netherlands among 60 survivors., Results: Replication manuals, allowing for replication of the PanCareFollowUp Care and Lifestyle Intervention, will be published and made freely available after the project. Moreover, results of the corresponding studies are expected within the next five years., Conclusions: The PanCareFollowUp project is a novel European collaboration aiming to improve the health and QoL of all survivors across Europe by developing and prospectively evaluating the person-centred PanCareFollowUp Care and Lifestyle Interventions., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. What should selective cardiometabolic prevention programmes in European primary care look like? A consensus-based design by the SPIMEU group.
- Author
-
Král N, de Waard AM, Schellevis FG, Korevaar JC, Lionis C, Carlsson AC, Sønderlund AL, Søndergaard J, Larsen LB, Hollander M, Thilsing T, Angelaki A, de Wit NJ, and Seifert B
- Subjects
- Consensus, Delivery of Health Care organization & administration, Europe, Humans, Risk Assessment methods, Risk Factors, Cardiovascular Diseases prevention & control, Metabolic Diseases prevention & control, Preventive Health Services organization & administration, Primary Health Care organization & administration
- Abstract
Background: Selective prevention of cardiometabolic diseases (CMD)-that is, preventive measures specifically targeting the high-risk population-may represent the most effective approach for mitigating rising CMD rates. Objectives: To develop a universal concept of selective CMD prevention that can guide implementation within European primary care. Methods: Initially, 32 statements covering different aspects of selective CMD prevention programmes were identified based on a synthesis of evidence from two systematic literature reviews and surveys conducted within the SPIMEU project. The Rand/UCLA appropriateness method (RAM) was used to find consensus on these statements among an international panel consisting of 14 experts. Before the consensus meeting, statements were rated by the experts in a first round. In the next step, during a face-to-face meeting, experts were provided with the results of the first rating and were then invited to discuss and rescore the statements in a second round. Results: In the outcome of the RAM procedure, 28 of 31 statements were considered appropriate and three were rated uncertain. The panel deleted one statement. Selective CMD prevention was considered an effective approach for preventing CMD and a proactive approach was regarded as more effective compared to case-finding alone. The most efficient method to implement selective CMD prevention systematically in primary care relies on a stepwise approach: initial risk assessment followed by interventions if indicated. Conclusion: The final set of statements represents the key characteristics of selective CMD prevention and can serve as a guide for implementing selective prevention actions in European primary care.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.