Search

Sandra D Boxum,1,2,* Sabien H van Exter,3,* Jan-Jaap Reinders,1,4,5 Niek Koenders,6 Hans Drenth,1,7,8 Manon GA van den Berg,3 Michael Tieland,9,10 Sophie LW Spoorenberg,11 Evelyn J Finnema,12– 14 Philip J van der Wees,2,6 Harriët Jager-Wittenaar1,3,15 1Research Group Healthy Ageing, Allied Health Care and Nursing, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, the Netherlands; 2Science Department IQ Health, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 3Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dietetics, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, 6500 HB, the Netherlands; 4Center for Dentistry and Dental Hygiene, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 5Research Group Interprofessional Education (IPE), Lifelong Learning, Education and Assessment Research Network (LEARN), Research Institute SHARE, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 6Department of Rehabilitation, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 7ZuidOostZorg, Organization for Elderly Care, Drachten, the Netherlands; 8Department of Primary and Long-Term Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 9Center of Expertise Urban Vitality, Faculty of Sports and Nutrition, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 10School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia; 11Primary care group ‘Dokter Drenthe’, Assen, the Netherlands; 12Health Science-Nursing Science and Education, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 13Research Group Living, Wellbeing and Care for Older People, NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands; 14Research Group Nursing Diagnostics, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, the Netherlands; 15Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Research Unit Experimental Anatomy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Sandra D Boxum, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Petrus Driessenstraat 3, 9714 CA, Groningen, the Netherlands, Email s.d.boxum@pl.hanze.nlBackground: As our global population ages, malnutrition and sarcopenia are increasingly prevalent. Given the multifactorial nature of these conditions, effective management of (risk of) malnutrition and sarcopenia necessitates interprofessional collaboration (IPC). This study aimed to understand primary and social care professionals’ barriers, facilitators, preferences, and needs regarding interprofessional management of (risk of) malnutrition and sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults.Methods: We conducted a qualitative, Straussian, grounded theory study. We collected data using online semi-structured focus group interviews. A grounded theory data analysis was performed using open, axial, and selective coding, followed by developing a conceptual model.Results: We conducted five online focus groups with 28 professionals from the primary and social care setting. We identified five selective codes: 1) Information exchange between professionals must be smooth, 2) Regular consultation on the tasks, responsibilities, and extent of IPC is needed; 3) Thorough involvement of older adults in IPC is preferred; 4) Coordination of interprofessional care around the older adult is needed; and 5) IPC must move beyond healthcare systems. Our conceptual model illustrates three interconnected dimensions in interprofessional collaboration: professionals, infrastructure, and older adults.Conclusion: Based on insights from professionals, interprofessional collaboration requires synergy between professionals, infrastructure, and older adults. Professionals need both infrastructure elements and the engagement of older adults for successful interprofessional collaboration.Keywords: malnutrition, sarcopenia, interprofessional, older adults

Background: As a sequel to a report by the Health Council of the Netherlands on contraception in persons with intellectual disabilities (IDs), a fierce debate about parenthood by such persons occurred, in which a lack of knowledge about parenting competences became clear. Therefore, the Ministry of Health commissioned a study investigating examples of "successful parenthood" by persons with IDs. Methods: In conformity with the literature and with legal categories, we defined "successful parenthood" as "good enough parenthood", meaning no indications for child abuse and/or neglect, no dealings with child protection agencies and no legal custody. We combined a nationwide quantitative questionnaire study with a qualitative interview study. Questionnaires were sent to all institutions involved in caring for persons with ID, interviews were held with "good enough" parents and their professional caregivers, selected on the basis of returned questionnaires. Results: Parenthood occurs in around 1.5% of persons with ID in the Netherlands and is mostly restricted to those with mild handicaps. In total, 51% of the cases were regarded, by caregivers, as not-good-enough parenthood, 33% were clearly good enough and 16% were doubtful. Predicting factors included the ability and the willingness to follow advice, the quality of the social network and the acceptance of parenting in the community. However, there is not one decisive predicting factor; particularly, the predictive value of the IQ alone is small. Conclusions: A general policy of discouragement of parenthood, as advocated by the Dutch Ministry, is not supported by our results; moreover, it would probably be impossible and have negative effects on social acceptance of parents with ID. The overall conclusion from the study therefore is that some kind of balancing model, in which positive and negative factors are weighed, may be useful to and need for support.