Search

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: To explore the preferences of people with memory complaints (PwMC) and their significant others regarding starting a diagnostic trajectory for dementia. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase. Selection of abstracts and papers was performed independently by two researchers. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Result sections of the selected papers were thematically synthesized. RESULTS: From 2497 citations, seven qualitative studies and two mixed methods studies published between 2010 and 2020 were included. Overall quality of the studies was high to moderate. A thematic synthesis showed that preferences for starting a diagnostic trajectory arose from the feeling of needing to do something about the symptoms, beliefs on the necessity and expected outcomes of starting a diagnostic trajectory. These views were influenced by normalization or validation of symptoms, the support or wishes of the social network, interactions with health care professionals, the health status of the PwMC, and societal factors such as stigma and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: A variety of considerations with regard to decision-making on starting a diagnostic trajectory for dementia were identified. This emphasizes the need to explore individual preferences to facilitate a timely dementia diagnosis.

Contains fulltext : 237587.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), INTRODUCTION: Researchers, policy-makers and healthcare professionals often stress the importance of an early dementia diagnosis. Empirical evidence, however, is scarce leading to a lack of consensus on the necessity of diagnosing dementia early. We emphasise the need for a 'timely' diagnosis, that is, one that occurs at the right moment for a person with memory complaints and his/her significant other. As the optimal timing differs between individuals, the implementation of shared decision making (SDM), preferably by the general practitioner (GP), as the start of a diagnostic trajectory, could help to determine this timely moment. SDM, however, is rarely practised with respect to dementia diagnoses. Therefore, in the context of the Shared Decision-Making regarding Dementia Diagnosis project, a patient decision aid (PtDA) for 'timely' dementia diagnosis in general practice will be developed. This protocol will describe the planned before and after evaluation of its implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a mixed-methods pilot study, we will investigate decision-making processes and experiences regarding a diagnostic trajectory before and after the introduction of a PtDA for people with memory complaints, their significant others and their GPs. The 'before group' will receive diagnostics as usual from their GPs. The 'after group' will use the PtDA. We expect the PtDA to increase the level of SDM and to contribute to a timely and personalised diagnostic trajectory. Data will be collected using semistructured interviews, questionnaires and information retrieved from people with memory complaints' medical records. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved by the Medical Review Ethics Committee of the Maastricht University Medical Centre. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed international journals and presented at conferences. This study was funded by the public funded Dutch Research Institute for Care and Medical Sciences (ZonMw). TRIAL REGI

AimThere is considerable heterogeneity in outcomes in studies reporting on the treatment of haemorrhoidal disease (HD). The aim of this study was to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for HD in cooperation with the European Society of Coloproctology.MethodA Delphi study was performed according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) methodology. In total 38 healthcare professionals and 30 patients were invited to the panel. Previously, 10 outcome domains and 59 outcomes were identified through a systematic literature review. In this study, these domains and outcomes were formed into one questionnaire for healthcare professionals and a separate questionnaire for patients. Sequential questionnaire rounds prioritizing the domains and outcomes were conducted. Panelmembers were asked to rate the appropriateness of each domain and outcome on a nine-point Likert scale. During a face-to-face meeting, healthcare professionals agreed on the primary and secondary end-points of the COS for HD. Finally, a short survey was sent to the healthcare professionals in order to reach consensus on how the chosen end-points should be assessed and at which time points.ResultsThe response rate in questionnaire round 1 for healthcare professionals was 44.7% (n=17). Sixteen out of 17 healthcare professionals also completed the questionnaire in round 2. The response rate for the patient questionnaire was 60% (n=18). Seventeen healthcare professionals participated in the face-to-face meeting. The questionnaire rounds did not result in a clear-cut selection of primary and secondary end-points. Most domains and outcomes were considered important, and only three outcomes were excluded. During the face-to-face meeting, agreement was reached to select the domain symptoms' as primary end-point, and complications', recurrence' and patient satisfaction' as secondary end-points in the COS for HD. Furthermore, consensus was reached that the domain symptoms' should be a patient re